El Podcast

Anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss argues that expanding repatriation policies and identity-driven academic trends are restricting access to skeletal collections and reshaping anthropology away from empirical science. Guest bio Elizabeth Weiss is a physical anthropologist and professor emeritus in the Department of Anthropology at San José State University. She studies skeletal remains, taught human osteology and forensic anthropology, curated the Ryan Mound collection, and is the author of On the Warpath: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors and Repatriation and Erasing the Past. Topics discussed NAGPRA and the expansion of repatriation rules Loss of skeletal collections in universities and museums How repatriation affects research, teaching, and forensic anthropology Kennewick Man and the reburial of ancient remains The shift from physical anthropology toward identity politics “Pretendians,” academic cancellation campaigns, and administrative pressure The effect of DEI bureaucracy on universities and anthropology departments Why students increasingly go abroad to study osteology and archaeology The future of anthropology in the US, Canada, Australia, and Europe Main points Weiss says repatriation has moved far beyond its original purpose and now threatens to remove not just human remains, but also associated materials, replicas, scans, and even teaching collections. She argues that once skeletal collections are lost, future research is permanently limited, especially in biological anthropology, archaeology, and forensic science. Teaching with real bones matters because students need hands-on experience identifying fragments, variation, and differences between human and non-human remains. Weiss sees Kennewick Man as a major turning point, saying his reburial helped open the door to repatriating other very ancient remains. She argues that traditional knowledge is increasingly being treated as overriding scientific evidence in repatriation decisions. According to Weiss, the field has shifted away from intellectual curiosity and scientific rigor toward identity politics, activist scholarship, and moral posturing. She says university administrators can still pressure tenured professors by cutting off resources, access, and institutional support, even if outright firing is difficult. Weiss also argues that higher education bureaucracy benefits from expanding categories like homelessness, food insecurity, and identity classification. Despite her criticism, she still believes anthropology is too fascinating to abandon and hopes the field can recover. Books discussed On the Warpath: My Battles with Indians, Pretendians, and Woke Warriors — Elizabeth Weiss Repatriation and Erasing the Past — Elizabeth Weiss and James Springer Laws and policies discussed Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (CalNAGPRA) 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

An economist explains why the American Dream isn’t dead—and how policy, not just personal effort, shapes who gets ahead. 👤 Guest Bio  Dr. Justin Callais is Chief Economist at the Archbridge Institute, co-editor of Profectus, and author of the Substack Debunking Degrowth. His research focuses on economic growth, social mobility, and policy-driven barriers to opportunity. 🧠 Topics Discussed Is the American Dream still alive? How social mobility is actually measured Inequality vs mobility (and why people confuse them) State-by-state differences in opportunity Housing, regulation, and barriers to entry Trade school vs college vs entrepreneurship AI and the future of work The role of mindset vs policy Why people misunderstand the past (1950s vs today) What policies actually increase mobility 🔑 Main Points The U.S. still offers strong upward mobility relative to most countries Mobility ≠ inequality (fixing inequality doesn’t automatically improve mobility) Housing regulation is one of the biggest barriers to opportunity States with less regulation and stronger institutions outperform others Entrepreneurship and economic growth are key drivers of mobility The American Dream is more alive than people perceive Negative narratives distort reality and reduce individual agency AI will change jobs—but mostly by augmenting, not eliminating, work Success paths vary: trades, college, or entrepreneurship can all work Policy environment matters more than individual effort alone 💬 Top 3 Quotes “The American Dream is still alive—people just don’t believe it is.” “Not all inequality is bad—some of it reflects value creation, not exploitation.” “If you make it harder to build, hire, or invest—you make it harder to move up.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

One-line summary: Chris Consultant joins Jesse to explain why he is leaving Germany, arguing that high taxes, bureaucracy, demographic decline, energy policy failures, and shrinking free speech have made Europe increasingly hostile to productive people. Guest bio: Chris Consultant is a banking and finance consultant, entrepreneur, YouTuber, and Substack writer. He creates content about taxes, economic decline, bureaucracy, demographics, AI, and the reasons behind his decision to leave Germany for Spain, with a longer-term goal of leaving Europe altogether. Topics discussed: Germany’s tax burden on self-employed workers Public health insurance and the myth of “free” European healthcare Church tax in Germany Mandatory public broadcasting fees Free speech, censorship, and arrests for online speech Germany’s energy policy and nuclear shutdowns Europe’s bureaucracy and anti-innovation culture Demographic decline, pensions, immigration, and welfare incentives Why Chris is moving from Germany to Spain Whether Europe still has a future How AI may reshape work and consulting The widening gap between U.S. and European innovation Common American myths about Europe Quality-of-life tradeoffs between Europe and the United States Main points: Chris says Germany heavily punishes productivity, especially for self-employed workers, through VAT, public health insurance costs, and high income taxes. He argues that European healthcare is not really “free,” but instead funded through large mandatory monthly payments and taxes. He describes Germany as overregulated and bureaucratic, saying the system rewards administrators more than builders, entrepreneurs, or innovators. He believes Europe’s low fertility, aging population, pension burdens, and immigration trends are pushing the continent toward long-term instability. He argues that Germany’s shutdown of nuclear energy and rising energy costs reflect political incompetence and are hurting industry and households. He says many Germans no longer feel comfortable speaking openly because of social pressure, media narratives, and legal consequences tied to online speech. He sees Spain as a short-term upgrade in quality of life because of weather, food, lower prices, and a more relaxed culture, but not as a permanent answer. He advises younger people to stay flexible, develop specialized skills, learn AI early, and move toward low-tax, opportunity-rich environments. Top 3 quotes: “It’s not very incentivizing to keep killing yourself and being productive when most of the money you earn is not ending in your pocket after all.” “The U.S. innovates first. Europe regulates first.” “You have to enjoy life. It’s short and you’ve got to make the best out of it.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

A philosophy professor/lawyer argues that med-school “holistic” + diversity-weighted admissions are less predictive than a numbers-based algorithm—and that the stakes show up downstream in physician quality, access, and patient outcomes. Guest bio: Dr. Steven Kirschner (as stated in your intro) is a distinguished teaching professor of Philosophy at SUNY Fredonia and also an attorney; he authored the 2024 paper “The Diversity Argument for Affirmative Action in Medical School: A Critique” (Journal of Controversial Ideas). Topics discussed: Holistic admissions vs. algorithmic/metrics-based selection The “15% top GPA+MCAT rejected” claim (2019–2022) Medical error estimates and why measurement is messy Predictive validity: MCAT, GPA, boards, and what doesn’t predict Specialty selection, pass/fail exams, and ranking problems DEI/affirmative action post–Supreme Court and “relabeling” effects Workforce shortages, incentives, and productivity (incl. part-time work) Disability accommodations, testing integrity, and gaming incentives Diversity-of-thought vs demographic diversity; “underserved communities” argument The uncomfortable “should patients use demographics as signals?” question Main points: Admissions should prioritize statistically validated predictors (MCAT + GPA, etc.), not interviews/essays/“compelling stories.” Holistic admissions is inconsistent and unvalidated, often functioning like an opaque quota-by-proxy system. Medical error and accountability make physician quality a high-stakes selection problem (even if exact death counts are disputed). If underserved-service is the goal, subsidize it directly (pay, loan forgiveness, tuition incentives) rather than indirectly via admissions preferences. Credential changes (e.g., pass/fail) can make it harder to sort candidates for competitive specialties. Workforce shortages strengthen the case for optimizing for long-run productivity and retention, not symbolic criteria. The taboo question: whether individuals should use group-level stats as a decision heuristic when individual-level info is limited. Top 3 quotes: “The number one error is that we're waiting, giving diversity, um a large amount of weight.” “Medical school admissions are done through… a holistic means… and they weight things that have not been statistically validated.” “The awkward but correct approach is to say, yes, you should.” (re: whether people should use demographics as predictors) 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Canada’s MAiD program has expanded rapidly—Dr. Ramona Coelho argues the system increasingly serves vulnerable people, with uneven safeguards and serious ethical, legal, and social risks. Guest bio: Dr. Ramona Coelho (MDCM, CCFP) is a family physician in London, Ontario, a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and co-editor of Unravelling MAiD in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care. She has provided testimony and policy input on MAiD and serves on Ontario’s MAiD Death Review Committee with the Office of the Chief Coroner. Topics discussed: How MAiD began in Canada (Carter decision → 2016 legislation) Track 1 vs. Track 2 and how eligibility broadened Euthanasia vs. assisted suicide (Canada vs. U.S. models) Oversight gaps, “doctor shopping,” and variable interpretations of the law Disability, loneliness, poverty, and access-to-care concerns Dementia, capacity, voluntariness, and family conflict Proposed/possible expansions (mental illness; mature minors; advance requests) Social messaging and suicide contagion risk Why jurisdictions (Oregon vs. Canada/Quebec/Netherlands) show different rates Main points: MAiD expanded from “reasonably foreseeable death” to include non-terminal cases (Track 2), increasing reach to people with disabilities and complex social suffering. Canadian safeguards and clinical interpretations vary widely, and the ability to “try again” with different assessors can make approvals easier to obtain. Canada’s model is overwhelmingly euthanasia (clinician-administered), which she argues changes the social dynamics compared with assisted-suicide regimes. She raises concerns about capacity/consent assessments—especially in dementia—and about insufficient access to palliative care and supports before MAiD occurs. She argues the policy’s public framing (“choice/compassion”) can obscure structural vulnerabilities (poverty, isolation, lack of services) and broader social harms. Top 3 quotes: “MAiD has become one of the top five ways to die in Canada.” “A patient who is very determined…can call back our centralized care coordination service and just keep getting another MAiD practitioner until they find one.” “Assisted suicide and euthanasia is sold as compassion and choice, but actually it is accessed by vulnerable people.” Disclaimer: Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by Dr. Ramona Coelho in this interview are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of her employer, affiliated institutions, advisory committees, or any organization with which she is associated. 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

A lively tour from Cold War “The Thing” to today’s surveillance capitalism—showing how audio capture, too much data, and automation pressures helped turn listening into AI.Guest bios:Dr. Toby Heys — Professor at the School of Digital Arts (SODA), Manchester Metropolitan University; co-founder of the AUDINT sonic research unit; co-author of Listening InDr. David Jackson — Senior Lecturer in Digital Visualisation at SODA, Manchester Metropolitan University; researches AI’s cultural impact; founded the Storytellers + Machines conference (2023); co-author of Listening In.Marsha Courneya — Canadian writer/editor; teaches Digital Dramaturgy at the International Film School of Cologne; doctoral researcher in Digital Culture and Communication at Birkbeck, University of London; co-author of Listening In.Topics discussed:“The Thing” (1945): passive bugging, resonance, why it went undetectedCold War escalation: normalization of listening, Five Eyes, PRISM/SnowdenStasi data glut: informants, dossiers, “collecting as mania,” behavior changeLanguage under surveillance: cryptolects, slang, coded speech, hip-hop as evasionSurveillance capitalism: smart homes, smart toys, wearables, “data promiscuity”Kids + data: baby monitors/crib cams, school biometrics, “data twins” before birthAI training + intimate life: accidental recordings, human review, terms-of-service realityFuture tensions: convenience vs autonomy, regulation lag, ownership erosion (“enshittification”)Main points:Audio surveillance scales into an “automation problem.” Once you can record everything, the bottleneck becomes listening fast enough, pushing intelligence services toward automated analysis.Surveillance changes behavior—even when nobody is actively listening. The possibility of being overheard bends speech, jokes, and self-presentation (Stasi dynamics → modern smart devices).“Too much data” doesn’t make it harmless. The danger isn’t only what’s heard today, but the creation of a searchable “permanent record” that can be reinterpreted later.The home becomes the most valuable capture zone. People drop the public mask at home; that intimacy makes in-home audio uniquely revealing and therefore lucrative/powerful.Children are captured early—often via “safety” and parental anxiety. Baby tech, smart toys, school systems, and medical records create a data trail before kids can consent or understand it.Snowden shocked—but didn’t trigger lasting mass refusal. The episode argues leaks often lead to resignation/memeification (“the intel officer listening”) rather than sustained backlash.AI + ownership is the next front. Beyond privacy, the guests worry about erosion of ownership (you can’t fully “own” digital goods or refuse totalizing platforms as easily).Top 3 quotes:Toby: “There was nothing to detect.”Marsha: “It ruptures language completely.”David: “data isn’t secure and safe.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

A former Silicon Valley insider explains how MBA-style “spreadsheet management” is breaking software—and why it’s making tech, AI, and everyday products worse.Guest bio:Darryl Campbell is a former tech industry insider who spent 15 years in Silicon Valley at companies including Amazon and Uber and at early-stage startups. He’s the author of Fatal Abstraction: Why the Managerial Class Loses Control of Software.Topics discussed:What “managerialism” is and how MBAs took over techWhy software moved from serving users to extracting valueIndustrial-era management vs. internet-scale systemsBoeing 737 MAX, Uber self-driving, and systemic riskEnshittification and the decline of product qualityAI hype, weak ROI, and incentives to do harmful thingsMonopoly power, captured regulation, and why markets don’t self-correctWhether real innovation has slowed since the 1970sWhat comes next: backlash, regulation, or a paradigm shiftMain points:The “managerial class” optimizes for financial metrics that don’t capture safety, quality, or real-world harm.Industrial-era management worked better because physical constraints forced slower feedback and respect for expertise.Software removes constraints: you can ship instantly at global scale, so errors and incentives can become catastrophes.Enshittification is a predictable outcome when monopoly power + financial targets replace user value.AI is under extreme financial pressure (huge capex vs. limited revenue), which encourages risky monetization.Traditional checks—shareholders, competition, regulators—often fail against near-monopolies.Meaningful improvement may require a broader public backlash or a major “paradigm shift.”Top 3 quotes:“Anything, literally anything, is permissible as long as it makes you more money.”“It’s impossible to ignore… the only way to stay current is to pay us $200 a year for the rest of your life.”“It feels like we’re in a black and white phase right now, and I’m really interested to see what the color phase afterward looks like. 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

MIT Free Speech Alliance president Wayne Stargardt explains how a few high-profile cancellations can drive widespread faculty self-censorship—even at a STEM powerhouse like MIT.Guest bio:Wayne Stargardt is the president of the MIT Free Speech Alliance (independent of MIT) and an MIT alumnus (Class of 1974) who focuses on academic freedom, free expression, and open debate at STEM universities.Topics discussed“Silencing Science at MIT” and what MIT faculty surveys suggest about self-censorshipThe Dorian Abbott Carlson Lecture cancellation (2021) and the alumni responseWhy faculty fear student retaliation (bias reporting, administrative escalation)FIRE campus free-speech rankings and what they measureMIT’s revenue model (research/endowment vs tuition) and why incentives differ from most schoolsK–12 socialization, in loco parentis, and why students arrive primed for “shout-down” normsDEI rebranding (“community and belonging”) and the claim that pressures went undergroundRisks to MIT: recruiting/retaining top faculty and research dollarsMIT reinstating SAT requirements (post-2020 test disruption)MIT vs Harvard: data/analysis vs decision-making under uncertainty (“intuition”)AI as a tool: value depends on the questions/tasks you setMain points:Multiple MIT faculty surveys—asked different ways—cluster around ~50–55% reporting some self-censorship in at least some settings.You don’t need “many” cancellations: a few public examples can trigger self-protective silence across a campus.The Abbott episode was a catalyst: MIT was “caught by surprise,” and faculty + alumni backlash made repeat events less likely—but speakers may be quietly filtered out earlier.FIRE rankings reflect student attitudes + institutional policies; MIT’s rank improved partly because others worsened, not because MIT’s score surged.MIT’s finances reduce tuition dependence; the bigger vulnerability is faculty environment → research strength → prestige/funding.Administrative culture shift (more “professional administrators”) can amplify complaint systems when they’re sympathetic to activist norms.Stargardt is cautiously optimistic: broader American free-speech culture pushes universities either to course-correct or fade amid demographic headwinds.Best 3 quotes:“You don't have to cancel too many professors at a university… they catch on real quick… and… self-censor.”“MIT is a multidisciplinary research institute, which happened to have a small specialized trade school attached to it.”“You don't have to cancel a whole lot of people to scare the faculty. You just have to cancel a few.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

In this episode, Jesse talks with Fordham University School of Law corporate-law professor Sean J. Griffith about why “go woke, go broke” hasn’t really played out—and why big, publicly traded firms can stay “woke” even when consumers or politicians claim there’s backlash. The core theme: modern corporate power often runs through managers, compliance systems, and financial intermediaries, not “owners,” and that structure changes what accountability looks like.They unpack:Managerialism and the separation of ownership from control in modern corporations (why founders can still get pushed out, and why shareholders often don’t steer day-to-day governance).How “woke” agendas persist inside firms through HR/compliance, regulatory levers, and asset-manager/proxy-voting plumbing.Why vague, non-falsifiable goals (DEI/ESG/sustainability) can become a perpetual project that reduces accountability and can substitute for clearer objectives like returns—or even employee compensation.The politics of corporate speech and compelled trainings, including the Florida “Stop WOKE Act” litigation.The “what now?” question: what reforms (especially around intermediaries and voting) might actually change corporate behavior. Key ideas & quotable moments “Woke doesn’t vanish; it rebrands.” Words change (DEI → “belonging,” ESG → “sustainability”), structures stay.Modern corporate governance isn’t “owners calling the shots.” It’s boards, managers, compliance, and intermediaries.Compliance departments can function as political “levers” inside firms—often not aligned with shareholder-return logic.Passive funds concentrate voting power. People hold the economic exposure, but big fund complexes often hold the vote.Vague goals reduce accountability. If you miss financial targets, point to ESG wins; if you miss ESG targets, point to financial realities.Topics covered “Woke capitalism” as organizational inertia, not just marketingManagerialism and the separation of ownership/controlBoard governance: fiduciary duty vs stakeholder goalsHR’s growth, compliance logic, and internal “mission” narrativesRegulation as governance-by-proxy (disclosure rules, compliance guidelines)Passive index funds, voting power, and “engagement” with CEOsProxy advisers and how voting guidance can steer outcomesStatus incentives for executives (elite conferences, reputational capital)The Florida workplace-training case and corporate First Amendment rightsAI and the possibility of “automating” bureaucracy (for better or worse)Political strategy: targeting intermediaries vs hoping markets self-correctLinks & references mentionedSean’s article “Woke Will Never Go Broke” at Chronicles Magazine.Sean’s faculty page at Fordham University School of Law.Sean’s papers on SSRN (example paper page).Business Roundtable “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” (2019).Securities and Exchange Commission climate disclosure rule (press release).Florida “Stop WOKE Act” workplace-training litigation (Eleventh Circuit case page).The Economist: “How HR took over the world… Will AI shrink it?”Guest bioSean J. Griffith is a corporate and securities law professor and director of the Fordham Corporate Law Center. His work focuses on corporate governance, securities regulation, and related questions of institutional power inside public companies.About this episodeIf you’ve ever wondered why “boycotts” don’t seem to change corporate behavior—or why the same internal programs persist no matter who wins elections—this episode is a deep dive into the structure of modern capitalism: boards, managers, compliance, regulators, and the intermediaries who often control how shares get voted. 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Political beliefs often matter more than data or methods in shaping how social scientists think about controversial issues. In this episode, sociologist Dr. Mark Horowitz explains why many professors line up by politics on hot-button questions, drawing on moral psychology, groupthink inside universities, and the idea that some topics become treated as morally untouchable “sacred victims.”Guest bio:Dr. Mark Horowitz is a Professor of Sociology at Seton Hall University whose research uses large surveys of faculty to study political bias, motivated reasoning, and viewpoint diversity in the social sciences.Topics discussed:Why politics predicts social-science positions on controversial questionsMoral Foundations Theory (Jonathan Haidt): care/fairness vs. loyalty/authority/sanctity“Bio-resistance” / discomfort with biological explanations in parts of the academyAnthropology & sociology survey findings (e.g., plausibility of evolved sex differences; biology & STEM gaps)“Sacred victims,” ingroup policing, and why some hypotheses become morally “off-limits”Postmodernism vs. “postmodern vibes”: activist scholarship without explicit postmodern labelsGrievance studies hoax + “idea laundering” and how ideas move journal → curriculum → common senseTenure realities: how dissent can be managed without formal firingReplication/reliability worries and what “fixes” might actually help: introspection + viewpoint diversityMain points:Humans reason with motivated cognition, and academics aren’t exempt—political identity often tracks judgments on contested claims.Moral intuitions shape what feels plausible: some explanations trigger moral disgust (e.g., claims perceived as “naturalizing inequality”).Fields with extreme ideological skew risk narrowing hypothesis space, intensifying policing, and losing public legitimacy.The issue isn’t “one side evil”—it’s how moral communities become interpretive communities (and vice versa).The best corrective mechanisms are viewpoint diversity, active engagement with opposing arguments, and self-awareness about bias.Top 3 quotes:“Do you believe it because the evidence suggests it—or because it’s congenial to how you feel?”“Interpretive communities become moral and emotional communities—and then disagreement feels morally wrong, not just empirically wrong.”“The only way to minimize distortion is introspection plus viewpoint diversity—actively seeking ideas that unsettle us.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Evolutionary psychologist Debra Lieberman explains how “disgust” and other built-in mental programs shape attraction, kinship, morality, and even law—while modern technology and social media scramble the cues those systems evolved to track.Guest bio:Dr. Debra Lieberman is a professor of psychology at the University of Miami and an evolutionary psychologist who studies how evolved “mental apps” shape social life—kinship, cooperation, morality, sexuality, and emotions. She’s the co-author of Objection: Disgust, Morality, and the Law.Topics discussed:What makes someone “hot”: symmetry, hormonal cues, and universal vs learned templatesMale vs female mate preferences (fertility cues; resource/provisioning cues; kindness/safety)Disgust as an evolved system for pathogen avoidance (food, touch/contact, sex)Incest avoidance, the Westermarck effect, kibbutzim and “minor marriages” evidenceSexual reproduction, pathogens, and why “mixing the gene pool” mattersHow disgust bleeds into moral judgment and law; coalitions and social leverageWhy modernity/tech changes the payoff of ancient intuitionsGratitude as a “sleeper” universal emotion that jumpstarts friendshipHer evolutionary psychology textbook + MediaByte projectMain points:Attraction isn’t “simple”—it’s output. Your brain runs hidden machinery that converts cues into a gut-level “hot/not.”Symmetry functions like a health certificate. It’s hard to build a symmetric body; disruption from disease/mutations makes symmetry informative.Men’s and women’s preferences differ on average, but share a template. Men track fertility-linked cues; women track resource acquisition/investment cues—plus kindness/safety as a major predictor.Disgust is a multi-purpose regulator. It steers eating, contact, sex, and social avoidance by tracking contamination risk and other fitness costs.Incest avoidance relies on cues, not DNA tests. Early co-residence can trigger “this is kin” psychology even when people aren’t related (Westermarck effect).Modern abundance doesn’t erase ancient wiring. People calibrate to local “baselines” and still compete relative to that baseline.Moral disgust can be weaponized. Disgust language can rally coalitions (“those people are disgusting/bad”) and support punishment, including via law.Gratitude is an underappreciated social engine. It flags “this person values me more than expected,” helping form alliances beyond kin.Top quotes:“Beauty is in the adaptation of the beholder.”“We’re not frogs… we have a very specific human operating system that guides us toward certain features and away from others.”“Symmetry is hard to build—it can act like a kind of health certificate.”“Women track resource acquisition… but one of the most critical traits is kindness—it signals safety.”“You smell something off and you don’t eat it—you’re not thinking ‘pathogens’… you’re thinking ‘ew’.”“There’s no one-size-fits-all disgust; it depends on what you were calibrated to as ‘normal.’”“If morality were just cooperation… why wouldn’t heterosexual men celebrate gay men for reducing competition?”“Gratitude is triggered when someone shows they value you more than you expected—it jumpstarts friendship.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Amanda Litman argues U.S. leadership is too old, local races are dangerously uncontested, and the fastest fix is getting more young people to run—backed by better pay and campaign-finance reform.Guest bio Amanda Litman is the co-founder and president of Run For Something (launched 2017), which supports young people running for local and state office and has helped elect 1,600+ officials in nearly every state.Topics discussed (in order)Gerontocracy: why older leadership shapes policy away from younger realitiesShocking age stats (esp. school boards) and “skin in the game”“Boomer leadership” vs next-gen leadership at work (culture, tech, boundaries)“Forget Congress”: why local offices matter most day-to-dayThe hidden universe of local elected offices (library, water, mosquito, coroner, etc.)Uncontested elections: what it means, why it cancels elections, why it hurts turnoutRun For Something’s process: problem → office → why voters should want youWhy powerful officials won’t leave (identity, perks, healthcare, staff, status)Fixes: term limits/age limits (pros/cons), plus accountability for corruptionMoney barriers: what local races really cost; public matching/vouchers; pay for legislators/staffSocial media: strategic vs haphazard use; digital footprint; detoxes; AI/deepfakes and electionsPractical “how to start running” steps (runforwhat.net; basic plan and math)Main pointsRepresentation gap: Median Americans are younger than the people making decisions; missing perspectives affects housing, schools, healthcare, etc.Local power is underrated: Most government that touches daily life is municipal/special-district, not Congress—and it’s where many politicians start.Uncontested races are a democracy failure: They reduce competition, campaigning, voter habits, and legislative effectiveness.Running is more doable than people assume: Many local races are low-cost; the bigger barrier is know-how and willingness to do the logistics.Structural reforms matter: Better pay for legislators + campaign finance reform (public matching, transparency, limits on outside spending, enforcement) reduce corruption incentives and widen who can serve.Leadership culture shift: Next-gen leadership emphasizes boundaries, flexibility, authenticity (without turning everything into “everyone’s trauma”), and competent use of modern comms.Tech is a permanent terrain: Social media is now core infrastructure for campaigning/leadership; AI and deepfakes will raise the stakes further.Top 3 quotes “It leaves people outta the room where decisions are made, which means that there's a lot of decisions made that really screw over young people.”“There are more than half a million elected offices in the United States.”“Once you've been able to answer those three questions… Everything else about a campaign is just logistics.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Social media isn’t “crack for your brain” for most people—Jeffrey Hall argues the best evidence shows tiny average effects on wellbeing, lots of measurement mess, and a bigger story about relationships, leisure, and moral panic.Guest bio (short)Dr. Jeffrey Hall is Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas and Director of the Relationships and Technology Labs, researching social media, communication, and how relationships shape wellbeing.Topics discussed (in order)Why “social media is toxic” became the default story (and why it may be a moral panic)What the research actually finds: effects near zero for most usersThe 0.4% figure and why context (baseline mental health, home life, SES) matters moreThe measurement problem: “screen time” vs “social media time” vs “everything a phone replaces”Media displacement: social media time often replaces TV time more than it replaces relationshipsMyth: social media addiction is widespread—why self-diagnosis ≠ clinical addictionTeen mental health: social media as a minor factor compared to home, school, money, support“Potatoes and glasses” comparison: putting effect sizes in perspectiveContent quality debates (TikTok vs Jerry Springer) and why taste ≠ wellbeing outcomesSocial bandwidth: why people decompress differently based on work and social demandsReal risks (fraud, cyberbullying, nonconsensual content) without treating them as the whole storyTech leaders restricting kids’ tech: privilege, parenting, and “perfectly curated” childhoodsHas teaching changed? Jeff’s take: pandemic disruption mattered more than phonesPractical takeaway: prioritize relationships; be forgiving about media; align leisure with valuesMain pointsMost studies find tiny average links between social media use and wellbeing; context explains far more.“Screen time” is a blunt instrument because phones replaced many older activities (TV, music, news, books, calls).“Addiction” is often used casually; clinically, we lack strong standards/tools to diagnose “smartphone addiction” the way we do substance use.Social time may be declining for some, but heavy media use often concentrates among people with fewer social anchors (work, family, community).Digital detox results vary—benefits tend to show up when people replace media with chosen, value-aligned activities.Relationships remain the most reliable wellbeing lever: face-to-face is great, calls are strong, texts can help—staying connected matters.Top 3 quotes (from the conversation)“Social media has become almost like a vortex that pours in every other conversation that we're having right now.”“Study after study basically says the effect is close to zero or approximate zero.”“It is really, really good evidence that relationships are good for you… prioritize relationships in your life.”Subscribe➡️Review➡️shareIf you liked this episode, subscribe for more conversations that cut through moral panics with data. Leave a review (it helps new listeners find the show), and share this episode with one friend who’s convinced social media is “destroying society”—especially if you want a calmer, more evidence-based take. 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Economic historian Tobias Straumann breaks down how Germany’s debt meltdown in 1931 crashed the global economy—and how a surprisingly generous 1953 debt deal helped spark the German economic miracle by putting growth ahead of punishment.GUEST BIO: Tobias Straumann (Switzerland) is Professor of Modern & Economic History at the University of Zurich; author of Out of Hitler’s Shadow and 1931: Debt, Crisis, and the Rise of Hitler.TOPICS DISCUSSED:1931 as the real inflection point of the Great DepressionTreaty of Versailles + reparations politics (why it’s not a straight-line story)Germany’s “double surplus” debt trap (budget + trade surplus) and default dynamicsGold standard breakdown and global contagionLondon Debt Agreement (1953): what it did and why it matteredWWII reparations vs interwar debts vs private creditors (who got paid)Cold War incentives vs the older “German problem” (balance of power since 1871)1990 reunification, the 2+4 treaty, and why reparations weren’t reopenedLater compensation: Israel/Claims Conference, forced labor, voluntary gesturesPoland/Greece reparations claims in modern politicsComparisons: Japan/Italy reparations and postwar strategyModern debt parallels (domestic vs foreign-currency debt; political will)MAIN POINTS:1931 turned a severe recession into a worldwide depression via Germany-centered financial contagion.Versailles mattered, but Allied policy adjustments and domestic politics shaped outcomes more than a simple “Versailles caused WWII” line.Germany’s foreign-currency debt made austerity + transfer demands self-defeating, ending in default and system collapse.The 1953 London Debt Agreement was pivotal: it reduced and restructured interwar debts and made repayment compatible with recovery.West Germany paid little-to-no WWII reparations (effectively deferred), while interwar private creditors recovered significant shares—morally messy but stabilizing.Cold War pressures helped, but Europe’s long-running challenge was integrating a too-strong Germany into a stable order.In 1990, the 2+4 framework avoided reopening WWII reparations to keep reunification politically and economically manageable.Later payments (Israel, Holocaust victims, forced laborers) partially addressed moral claims outside classic state-to-state reparations.TOP 3 QUOTES:“We think that the year 1931 was the turning point… it turned into a worldwide depression.”“It’s probably the biggest and most important debt settlement of the 20th century.”“It’s morally hard to swallow… but it had the advantage of stabilizing Western Europe economically and politically.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

A cognitive psychologist explains why college student IQ now averages about 102, why that shift is mathematically inevitable as enrollment expands, and how outdated testing norms and student-evals can quietly wreck both education and clinical decisions.GUEST BIODr. Bob Uttl is a cognitive psychologist and professor at Mount Royal University (Canada) who researches psychometrics, assessment, and how intelligence tests are interpreted and misused in real-world settings.TOPICS DISCUSSED (IN ORDER)What IQ is, how it’s measured, and why scores are standardized (mean 100, SD 15)The Flynn Effect and why “raw ability” rose over the last centuryWhy expanding university enrollment mathematically lowers the average IQ of undergradsThe meta-analysis: how the team compiled WAIS results over time and what they found (down to ~102)The Frontiers controversy: accepted, posted, went viral, then “un-accepted” after social media blowbackClinical misuse: comparing modern test-takers to decades-old norms and the harms that followImpacts inside universities: wider ability range, teaching to the lower tail, boredom at the topGrades + incentives: student evaluations as satisfaction metrics that push standards downwardEmployers adapting: degrees losing signaling value; rise of employer-run assessments/trainingDifferences across majors and institutions: SAT/GRE as IQ-proxies; fields with feedback/standardized licensure“Reverse Flynn” talk: why some skills crater (speeded arithmetic, fluency) as tools replace practiceAI and learning: hallucinations, the need for human judgment, and the possible return of oral examsEuropean exam models vs North American incentivesFinal takeaways: fix misinformation about undergrad IQ; remove harmful incentives; reintroduce standardsMAIN POINTSIQ tests are periodically re-normed, so “100” always tracks the current population average even as raw performance changes.As a larger share of the population attends university, the average IQ of undergrads must move closer to the population mean—this is arithmetic, not an insult.Uttl’s meta-analysis argues today’s undergrads average around 102 IQ, far closer to “average” than older assumptions (e.g., 115+).Outdated norms and sloppy cross-era comparisons can shave ~20+ points off a person “on paper,” creating bogus diagnoses and high-stakes harm (disability decisions, fitness-for-duty, litigation).Universities now teach a wider spread of ability, which pressures instruction toward the lower end unless programs stratify or standardize outcomes.Student evaluations function like customer satisfaction scores; combined with adjunct/contract insecurity, they incentivize grade inflation and lower rigor.Employers respond by discounting degrees and building their own testing/training pipelines.Some “reverse Flynn” patterns may reflect skill/fluency loss (e.g., speeded arithmetic) as calculators/AI replace practice—not necessarily a uniform drop in reasoning.A plausible reform path: reduce reliance on student evals, adopt clearer standards, and consider more direct assessments (including oral exams) where appropriate.BEST 3 QUOTES“The decrease in average IQ of university students is a necessary consequence of increased enrollment.”“Student evaluations of teaching are basically measures of satisfaction.”“We need to remove the misinformation about what is the IQ of undergraduate students.”  🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Jeff Davis breaks down why the Highway Trust Fund has been insolvent since 2008 and what fixes (and tradeoffs) are realistic as EVs grow.GUEST BIOJeff Davis is a Senior Fellow at the Eno Center for Transportation and Editor of Eno Transportation Weekly. He has more than 30 years of experience in federal transportation policy, including eight years working in Washington, D.C., advising on the federal budget, the Highway Trust Fund, and long-term infrastructure funding and governance.TOPICS (IN ORDER)What the Highway Trust Fund is (created to fund interstates via fuel/trucking taxes)Why it broke in 2008 (spending > dedicated revenue)The 3 drivers: slower VMT growth, higher MPG, tax politicsFederal vs state roles (federal-aid network + shifting cost shares)Reform options: gas tax bump vs mileage fee; privacy/admin hurdlesEVs: accelerant, not original cause; state fee/VMT pilotsTransit account inside HTF (how it got there; mismatch perceptions)Federal rules vs state flexibility (states using state $$ to avoid red tape)AVs: uncertain impact + liability/legal messUnderreported issue: safety mandates raise car/rail costsInternational models: truck tolls abroad; toll resistance in U.S.MAIN POINTSGas tax was a proxy for driving; that proxy is weakening (less VMT growth + better MPG).Politics prevented rate increases; since 2008 Congress has plugged holes with general-fund transfers.Mileage fees are “fair” in theory but hard in practice (privacy + enforcement + admin scale).Registration-based fees (incl. EV fees) may be more feasible.Transit funding in HTF is coalition-driven and not a clean “users pay” match.Federal dollars come with heavy conditions; some states route federal money to maintenance to minimize paperwork.TOP 3 QUOTES“There’s three big reasons… driving doesn’t increase like it used to… gasoline is a worse proxy… and no one can agree on tax revenue increases.”“GPS-based VMT tracking… is perfect economically… [but] the biggest privacy nightmare.”“We’re going to miss the gas tax… it’s a very efficient tax.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Harvard’s Shane Greenstein explains why Acquired wins by treating each episode like an audiobook—high-signal, audience-first, and built for durable value.GUEST BIO: Dr. Shane M. Greenstein is a Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, where he teaches technology, operations, and management and writes HBS case studies on modern businesses.TOPICS DISCUSSED (IN ORDER): WHY ACQUIRED WORKS: Breaking podcast “rules,” competing with audiobooks, high-signal editing, host chemistry, and durable content that doesn’t expireAUDIENCE & NICHE STRATEGY: High-income aspirational listeners, “big niche” logic, Slack feedback loops, and expanding breadth without losing focusBUSINESS & MONETIZATION MODEL: B2B advertisers, high-value contracts, season sponsorships, rejecting 95% of ads, and protecting audience trustOPERATIONS & CONSTRAINTS: Extreme prep, editing workflow, no staff beyond an editor, time scarcity, and intentional limits on scalingCASE STUDY ORIGINS & RESEARCH: How the HBS case began, analytics access, third-party validation, and teaching-case methodologyMEDIA LANDSCAPE & FUTURE: Podcasting vs legacy media, audience balkanization, video tradeoffs, and the role of live, unpredictable formatsRISKS & UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS: Reputation exposure, topic selection risk, family/work tradeoffs, AI slop, and platform uncertaintyMAIN POINTS:Acquired “breaks rules” but follows classic business rules: match product to audience, align advertisers to audience, build operations around constraints.They win by not wasting time: heavy editing + high density of insight, built for repeat listening and long shelf life.Their edge is durability: they target ~80% of content still relevant a year later, so the back catalog keeps earning.Their advertising works because it’s B2B + high contract value: a few conversions can justify huge spends; they protect audience trust by rejecting most ads.Avoiding video is a control tradeoff: YouTube distribution can mean less control over ad experience and more audience annoyance.Scaling is intentionally limited: the “team of 3” model preserves quality but raises risks (time pressure, topic selection errors, burnout).Biggest threats aren’t competitors—they’re reputation risk, platform/tech shifts, and AI-driven slop reducing trust.TOP 3 QUOTES:“They deliberately don’t waste anybody’s time.”“Their primary substitute… is someone going out and buying an audiobook.”“A niche on the internet can be six people in your hometown times a billion.”  🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Tenured sociology professor Mark Horowitz explains why falling preparedness, grade inflation, and perverse incentives are eroding college standards—and why “broke, woke, stroke” helps describe the pattern.GUEST BIO: Dr. Mark Horowitz is a sociology professor at Seton Hall University and co-author of a survey-based study of tenured faculty perceptions about academic standards, grade inflation, student preparedness, and institutional incentives in higher education.TOPICS DISCUSSED IN ORDER:Why the authors ran a higher-ed “crisis” survey (faculty perspectives vs pundit/parent narratives)Horowitz’s “honors student with junior-high-level writing” anecdoteKey survey findings: perceived decline in preparedness, increased pushback, grade inflation“Broke, Woke, Stroke” framework: market pressures, egalitarian/compassion impulses, therapeutic ethos“Most shocking” claim: some functionally illiterate students graduating (and why that happens)Which factor matters most: Horowitz argues “broke” (economics/market incentives) is decisiveAdmin growth and student-support infrastructure; retention/compassion language vs rigor/meritTaboo around ability/intellectual differences; political psychology and educational romanticismConcern about watering down harming gifted students; standards vs equity tensionsPotential solutions: admissions tests, exit/credentialing signals, eliminating student evals; bigger structural funding conversationMAIN POINTS:Many tenured faculty report signs of a standards problem: lower preparedness, more grade pressure, more pushback.“Broke” incentives (enrollment/revenue pressure + reduced public support + debt-financed model) push institutions toward admitting and passing more students.“Woke” sensibilities (egalitarian compassion for disadvantaged students) can combine with market incentives to reduce rigor and resist sorting/standards.“Stroke” dynamics (therapeutic/mental-health framing, protecting student feelings) further discourages hard grading, failure, and frank talk about ability.The result is a weakened “signaling function” of the degree: if everyone gets A’s/B’s, employers learn less from credentials.Fixes are hard because incentives punish the people who enforce standards (evals, backlash, institutional pressure), but small reforms could still matter.TOP 3 QUOTES:“We use that kind of cheeky mnemonic of broke, woke, stroke.”“We think the incentive structure in higher ed right now is perverse.”“It’s kind of a tragedy of the commons in a way. No university can afford to raise standards, but if none do, the long-run tendency is to have the system collapse.”  🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

A wide-ranging conversation with economist and AI consultant Dr. Emmanuel Maggiori on why Modern Monetary Theory overpromises a “free lunch,” what really causes inflation, how Bitcoin and AI are misunderstood, and why seductive economic stories are so dangerous.GUEST BIO:Emmanuel Maggiori is an armchair economist, computer scientist, and AI consultant based in the UK. Originally from Argentina, he has a PhD (earned in France), works with companies to build AI systems, and writes widely about economics and artificial intelligence. He is the author of several books, including If You Can Just Print Money, Why Do I Pay Taxes? Modern Monetary Theory Distilled and Debunked in Plain English, Smart Until It’s Dumb, and The AI Pocket Guide, and has a large following on LinkedIn and X/Twitter.TOPICS DISCUSSED:What Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) actually claimsHow money is created in modern economies (broad money vs reserves)Why MMT’s “taxes don’t fund spending” story is misleadingStephanie Kelton’s accounting error and the “deficit myth”The Cantillon effect and who really pays for money printingArgentina, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and real-world inflation episodesJavier Milei, austerity, and Argentina’s recent disinflationGovernment debt, “we owe it to ourselves,” and default via inflationBitcoin as a supposed solution to monetary problemsWho really created Bitcoin and what it’s actually good forThe current AI boom, why it’s a bubble on the business side, and unit economicsOpenAI, DeepSeek, Nvidia, and why foundational models lack a moatHow AI will change the labor market (coders, translators, blue-collar work)AI, Hollywood/TV writing, and the gap between “good enough” and truly excellent workFinal cautions about seductive economic theories and AI hypeMAIN POINTS:MMT in a nutshell: MMT says a government with its own currency can always create money to pay for spending and debt, and that taxes exist mainly to control inflation, create demand for the currency, and shape behavior—not to “fund” spending.Accounting problems in MMT: Emmanuel argues that key MMT figures (especially Stephanie Kelton) made basic accounting errors about government bank accounts and money aggregates like M1, then papered over them with exceptions (e.g., temporary overdrafts at central banks).Why taxes really matter: Even if a government could print money, in practice you need taxes before spending because the Treasury’s accounts can’t just go endlessly negative—and politically, raising taxes fast enough to control inflation is extremely unlikely.Cantillon effect & asset swaps: Paying off debt with newly created money is not a harmless “asset swap.” It channels new money first to financial institutions, inflates asset prices and credit, and ultimately erodes the real value of ordinary people’s cash savings.Real-world inflation is not an accident: In cases like Argentina, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or Weimar Germany, there were real triggers (droughts, war reparations, commodity shocks), but the hyperinflation came from repeated resort to money printing as the default response.Argentina as a warning: Emmanuel’s personal experiences—suitcases of cash for a normal dinner, unusable mortgages, dollarized house purchases—illustrate how chronic money printing and price controls destroy trust, planning, and basic economic functioning.Javier Milei & austerity: Milei sharply cut deficits and money printing; inflation has fallen quickly. Critics say it’s just recession-driven demand collapse, but Emmanuel notes history shows disinflation often follows when governments stop printing and cut spending.Debt and “we owe it to ourselves”: Government debt is a real intertemporal deal: some people give up current consumption so the state can use resources now, in exchange for more consumption later. Unexpected inflation is an economic default on those savers.Bitcoin skepticism: Bitcoin solves a fascinating technical problem (a decentralized, hard-to-alter ledger), but Emmanuel questions its use as a stable store of value (because of huge volatility) and notes there are other ways to protect savings (equities, etc.).AI bubble dynamics: AI as a technology is here to stay and genuinely useful, but foundational model providers have thin or no moats—methods are public, competitors catch up, and models become commodities competing on price with brutal compute costs.Nvidia and the “shovel sellers”: Chip makers selling GPUs may fare better than model labs, but there are worrying signs (like unsold inventory) that they may be over-producing “shovels” for a gold rush that can’t all pay off.AI startups on top of models: Most AI-powered apps (wrappers for therapy, yoga, productivity, etc.) have almost no defensible edge. Anyone can build similar products, so profits will be squeezed and many will fail.Work & careers in the AI age: He wouldn’t steer a kid away from computer science—but urges them to be at the intersection of business and tech, not just a narrow coder. Routine “good enough” work (like basic translation) is more at risk than high-end, high-touch work.Blue-collar and “boring” businesses: Physical, unsexy businesses (plumbing, soundproofing, trades) look very robust and lucrative; in London, plumbers often bill more than many white-collar professionals.AI as an imitator, not an oracle: Large models are brilliant imitators trained on oceans of human text (Reddit, etc.), not machines designed for truth. They’ll keep sounding confident and sometimes being wrong.TOP 3 QUOTES:“MMT is like a theory that promises you a free lunch—and even MMT economists themselves use the phrase ‘free lunch.’ If it sounds like that, you should be very suspicious.”“All these rules that stop governments from just printing money exist for a reason: we do not trust politicians with a blank check on the public purse.”“AI is an incredible imitator. It’s trained on a massive pile of human text, and it’s very good at sounding right—but that doesn’t mean it’s true, or high-end work, or that it understands what it’s saying.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!

Independent journalist James Corbett joins Jesse to trace how media, tech, and elite power have reshaped the information landscape—from Time’s 2006 “You” to today’s post-truth, AI-saturated world.GUEST BIO:James Corbett is an independent journalist and documentary filmmaker based in Japan. Since 2007 he’s run The Corbett Report, an open-source intelligence project covering geopolitics, media, finance, and technology through long-form podcasts, videos, and essays.TOPICS DISCUSSED:Time’s 2006 “Person of the Year” and the early optimism of user-generated mediaSmartphones, YouTube, and the shift to always-on, short-form videoLegacy media vs podcasts, Rogan, and long-form conversationAdpocalypse, subscriptions, foundations, and “post-journalism”AI “slop,” dead internet theory, and human vs synthetic contentLeft–right vs “up–down” (authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian) politicsElite networks and foundations: Rockefeller, Gates, philanthropy as powerClimate narratives, health framing, and energy demands of AIFuture crises: hot war, financial bubbles, AI and labor, UBI and controlMAIN POINTS:The early internet briefly empowered ordinary people. Corbett’s own path—from teacher in Japan to reaching millions—shows how 2000s platforms genuinely opened space for bottom-up media.The smartphone changed how we think, not just what we see. Moving from long-form text/audio to short, swipeable video has compressed attention and pushed politics toward slogans and clips.The business model broke journalism before AI did. As ad money fled to platforms, outlets turned to paywalls, patrons, and foundations—pulling coverage toward causes and away from broad public-interest reporting.The real divide is power, not party. Corbett argues we miss the “up–down” axis—authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian—so we keep swapping parties but getting similar outcomes on war, finance, and surveillance.AI and automation are economic and political weapons. If AI displaces labor and the state replaces wages with universal income, whoever controls those payouts gains unprecedented leverage over everyday life.Long-form human conversation is still a resistance strategy. Despite dark trends, he sees deep, sustained, human-made media as one of the few ways left to think clearly and build real communities.BEST QUOTES:On the shift since 2006:“We went from ‘You are the Person of the Year’ to ‘You are the problem’—from celebrating amateur voices to treating them as a disinformation threat.”On media form and attention:“I started in an era where you could play a ten-minute clip inside an hour-long podcast. Now if you go over two minutes, people think you’re crazy.”On politics:“Left and right exist, but the missing axis is up and down—authoritarian versus anti-authoritarian. Once you see that, a lot of ‘flip-flops’ make sense.”On AI and control:“If the state is the one feeding and clothing you after AI replaces your job, then the state effectively owns you.” 🎙 The Pod is hosted by Jesse Wright💬 For guest suggestions, questions, or media inquiries, reach out at https://elpodcast.media/📬 Never miss an episode – subscribe and follow wherever you get your podcasts.⭐️ If you enjoyed this episode, please rate and review the show. It helps others find us. Thanks for listening!