Tip: click a paragraph to jump to the exact moment in the video. “Expert” Common Sense is Often Nonsense

1. 00:02 By far the most dangerous sentence in the English language is this makes sense. The problem is that common sense is often nonsense. It often contradicts reality, the truth and facts. Things make sense to us. We say A probably leads to B or if C then definitely D. And yet the world is a lot more complex. The fabric of reality allows for multiple pathways from A to B involving C or possibly Q. When we make common sense judgments, we use our very limited experience. And yet the vast majority of reality is By far the most dangerous sentence in the English language is this makes sense. The problem is that common sense is often nonsense. It often contradicts reality, the truth and facts. Things make sense to us. We say A probably leads to B or if C then definitely D. And yet the world is a lot more complex. The fabric of reality allows for multiple pathways from A to B involving C or possibly Q. When we make common sense judgments, we use our very limited experience. And yet the vast majority of reality is
2. 00:54 inaccessible to us. We filter out 95% of all the information that reaches us. We also not privy to multiple frequencies, multiple occurrences and events, the way other people think. There’s so much that is out of our reach that to use common sense is a form of grandiosity, hubris. And it is exactly what science attempts to counter, to fight, to eradicate. Science is not founded on common sense. Science is humble. Science is about humility. It’s about modesty. sciences the main tenet of science is I don’t inaccessible to us. We filter out 95% of all the information that reaches us. We also not privy to multiple frequencies, multiple occurrences and events, the way other people think. There’s so much that is out of our reach that to use common sense is a form of grandiosity, hubris. And it is exactly what science attempts to counter, to fight, to eradicate. Science is not founded on common sense. Science is humble. Science is about humility. It’s about modesty. sciences the main tenet of science is I don’t
3. 01:44 know but I’m going to investigate today I’m going to explore several common sense myths propagated what else by self-styled experts my name is Sanvakning I’m the author of malignant self- loveve narcissism revisited I have a PhD in physics and I’m a professor of psychology So self-styled experts, let alone the lay persons who follow their misinformation, they have zero scientific training. That you have graduated from a university doesn’t make you a scientist. And these people have even less exposure know but I’m going to investigate today I’m going to explore several common sense myths propagated what else by self-styled experts my name is Sanvakning I’m the author of malignant self- loveve narcissism revisited I have a PhD in physics and I’m a professor of psychology So self-styled experts, let alone the lay persons who follow their misinformation, they have zero scientific training. That you have graduated from a university doesn’t make you a scientist. And these people have even less exposure
4. 02:28 to scholarly literature. I found that they’re basically lazy. They tend to trust their own intuition, their own gut instinct, their own reasoning processes. They are narcissists in effect because they believe that knowledge comes from the inside and that they’re uniquely qualified to get hold of this kind of knowledge. And so today we are going to pull them a peg down, reduce them to size and expose their nonsensical shenanigans. The differences between common sense and science. Number one, single versus multiple to scholarly literature. I found that they’re basically lazy. They tend to trust their own intuition, their own gut instinct, their own reasoning processes. They are narcissists in effect because they believe that knowledge comes from the inside and that they’re uniquely qualified to get hold of this kind of knowledge. And so today we are going to pull them a peg down, reduce them to size and expose their nonsensical shenanigans. The differences between common sense and science. Number one, single versus multiple
5. 03:12 explanations. In other words, common sense offers only one way forward. Common sense says this is the way it is. Don’t bother to think any further. don’t bother to gather evidence. Whereas science, the first thing a scientist does, the scientist maps out all the possible trajectories, all the possible chains of events and only then does the scientist begin to investigate. And scientific investigation subject to the scientific method involves a completely neutral, objective, open mind. You don’t make up explanations. In other words, common sense offers only one way forward. Common sense says this is the way it is. Don’t bother to think any further. don’t bother to gather evidence. Whereas science, the first thing a scientist does, the scientist maps out all the possible trajectories, all the possible chains of events and only then does the scientist begin to investigate. And scientific investigation subject to the scientific method involves a completely neutral, objective, open mind. You don’t make up
6. 03:53 your mind in advance. Reminds me of a lawyer I used to have, Roami Kaspi. And Kaspi used to tell me, “I have made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts.” That is common sense. The second difference between common sense and science is that science is evidencebased. Science is evidentiary. There is a condition of evidence. We don’t say anything in science unless we have hard evidence. The hard evidence depends usually on experiments or studies and there is a major condition that these exper the your mind in advance. Reminds me of a lawyer I used to have, Roami Kaspi. And Kaspi used to tell me, “I have made up my mind. Don’t confuse me with the facts.” That is common sense. The second difference between common sense and science is that science is evidencebased. Science is evidentiary. There is a condition of evidence. We don’t say anything in science unless we have hard evidence. The hard evidence depends usually on experiments or studies and there is a major condition that these exper the
7. 04:31 results of these experiments and studies have to be replicated by multiple scientists in multiple locations over a protracted period of time. If experiments and studies cannot be replicated, something is wrong with them. Just for your edification, in psychology, 80% 80% of all studies and experiments cannot be replicated successfully. This is known as a replication crisis and it cast out the claims of psychology to be a science. Our common sense is wrong most of the time. I’m going to repeat this. results of these experiments and studies have to be replicated by multiple scientists in multiple locations over a protracted period of time. If experiments and studies cannot be replicated, something is wrong with them. Just for your edification, in psychology, 80% 80% of all studies and experiments cannot be replicated successfully. This is known as a replication crisis and it cast out the claims of psychology to be a science. Our common sense is wrong most of the time. I’m going to repeat this.
8. 05:15 Our common sense is wrong most of the time. Think for a minute. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Although common sense would tell you otherwise. The earth is not flat. Although common sense would tell you otherwise. Common sense is not a reliable guide as to what is real and what is not. And now I’m going to isolate seven claims out of 700 claims by self-styled experts. All of them are founded on common sense, a lack of understanding of the scientific method and science in general. And I’m going to do my best to Our common sense is wrong most of the time. Think for a minute. The sun does not revolve around the earth. Although common sense would tell you otherwise. The earth is not flat. Although common sense would tell you otherwise. Common sense is not a reliable guide as to what is real and what is not. And now I’m going to isolate seven claims out of 700 claims by self-styled experts. All of them are founded on common sense, a lack of understanding of the scientific method and science in general. And I’m going to do my best to
9. 05:58 obliterate them to be gentle. Let’s start with a famous canar. If trauma creates pathological narcissism, why don’t all traumatized people become narcissists? Like the common sensical approach is if A leads to B then A should always lead to B and if A does not lead to B then something is wrong with the assumption that A causes B. So if there is trauma and this allegedly creates pathological narcissism and there are other traumatized people who do not become narcissist, this proves that trauma does obliterate them to be gentle. Let’s start with a famous canar. If trauma creates pathological narcissism, why don’t all traumatized people become narcissists? Like the common sensical approach is if A leads to B then A should always lead to B and if A does not lead to B then something is wrong with the assumption that A causes B. So if there is trauma and this allegedly creates pathological narcissism and there are other traumatized people who do not become narcissist, this proves that trauma does
10. 06:42 not cause narcissism. This is flawed thinking and very primitive one if I may add. There are many possible reasons why trauma should result in narcissism and many possible reasons why trauma should not result in narcissism. So we could have a group, we could have a cohort, we could have a population of people. They’ve all been exposed to trauma and yet only some of them become narcissists. And some of them become narcissists for many possible reasons. One possible reason is that they’re not cause narcissism. This is flawed thinking and very primitive one if I may add. There are many possible reasons why trauma should result in narcissism and many possible reasons why trauma should not result in narcissism. So we could have a group, we could have a cohort, we could have a population of people. They’ve all been exposed to trauma and yet only some of them become narcissists. And some of them become narcissists for many possible reasons. One possible reason is that they’re
11. 07:23 genetically predisposed to become narcissists. Another possible reason is that they have brain abnormalities. These are two possible reasons. I personally think these are likely reasons, but this is my common sense speaking. This is not scientific because there are other possible reasons. For example, maybe the mothers of people who became narcissists were stressed during pregnancy, were hormonally disrupted, drank alcohol, I don’t know, were exposed to adverse life circumstances. Maybe the people who became narcissists genetically predisposed to become narcissists. Another possible reason is that they have brain abnormalities. These are two possible reasons. I personally think these are likely reasons, but this is my common sense speaking. This is not scientific because there are other possible reasons. For example, maybe the mothers of people who became narcissists were stressed during pregnancy, were hormonally disrupted, drank alcohol, I don’t know, were exposed to adverse life circumstances. Maybe the people who became narcissists
12. 08:02 grew up in physical environment with a lot of pollution of many kinds. There are so many possibilities as to why some people become narcissists and others do not when they are exposed to trauma. So how can we decide what is the real chain of causation? What is the real cause and what is the real effect? We conduct experiments. We collect data. We either conduct randomized clinical trials which is very difficult to do with psychological constructs or at the very least we use mandelian randomization. grew up in physical environment with a lot of pollution of many kinds. There are so many possibilities as to why some people become narcissists and others do not when they are exposed to trauma. So how can we decide what is the real chain of causation? What is the real cause and what is the real effect? We conduct experiments. We collect data. We either conduct randomized clinical trials which is very difficult to do with psychological constructs or at the very least we use mandelian randomization.
13. 08:44 But we don’t just rely on common sense. When we study a large population of narcissists we may discover that they all share a genetic or hereditary abnormality. We may discover they all share the same hereditary traits. We all may all dis We may discover they all share the same brain abnormalities. We may discover this at this stage. We haven’t. There is a smattering of studies which seem to indicate that this is the case that narcissism involves heredity, narcissism involves brain abnormalities. But we don’t just rely on common sense. When we study a large population of narcissists we may discover that they all share a genetic or hereditary abnormality. We may discover they all share the same hereditary traits. We all may all dis We may discover they all share the same brain abnormalities. We may discover this at this stage. We haven’t. There is a smattering of studies which seem to indicate that this is the case that narcissism involves heredity, narcissism involves brain abnormalities.
14. 09:24 But these studies are tiny, flawed, not serious, not rigorous, and most definitely not conclusive. Which is precisely the reason we don’t teach this in universities. It’s not about dogma. It’s not about a united front. It’s not about some sinister conspiracy. It’s just we don’t have evidence. There are the possibilities. When we study the history of narcissists, people with narcissistic personality disorder, we often discover trauma and abuse in early childhood in varying ways. Not But these studies are tiny, flawed, not serious, not rigorous, and most definitely not conclusive. Which is precisely the reason we don’t teach this in universities. It’s not about dogma. It’s not about a united front. It’s not about some sinister conspiracy. It’s just we don’t have evidence. There are the possibilities. When we study the history of narcissists, people with narcissistic personality disorder, we often discover trauma and abuse in early childhood in varying ways. Not
15. 09:59 only the classical forms of trauma and abuse, but also other forms such as pedest idolization or pampering or spoiling or overprotectiveness or parentification or instrumentalization. There are many forms of abuse. But invariably in the personal history of people with narcissistic personality disorder, we find these anticidence, these precedents. And of course, this is not proof of causation. I agree. But it’s a strong indicator. We may be able to discover that something has happened to the only the classical forms of trauma and abuse, but also other forms such as pedest idolization or pampering or spoiling or overprotectiveness or parentification or instrumentalization. There are many forms of abuse. But invariably in the personal history of people with narcissistic personality disorder, we find these anticidence, these precedents. And of course, this is not proof of causation. I agree. But it’s a strong indicator. We may be able to discover that something has happened to the
16. 10:33 mother during pregnancy. We may be able to able to discover that in certain periods of time, in certain cultures, in certain societies, people are more prone to become narcissists than in others. You can’t compare apples with oranges and then say, you see, fruits don’t exist, which is what these self-styled experts are doing. Very poor scholarship. Next is you see what I’m trying to do? I’m trying to debunk common sense myths and certainties. So here’s another one. If a certain part mother during pregnancy. We may be able to able to discover that in certain periods of time, in certain cultures, in certain societies, people are more prone to become narcissists than in others. You can’t compare apples with oranges and then say, you see, fruits don’t exist, which is what these self-styled experts are doing. Very poor scholarship. Next is you see what I’m trying to do? I’m trying to debunk common sense myths and certainties. So here’s another one. If a certain part
17. 11:14 of the brain reacts to behavior changing medication, it means that this part of the brain is the source of that behavior. True? Makes common sense, doesn’t it? This makes sense, but it’s wrong. It’s wrong because we have no idea and we have no way of proving whether be the behavior has shaped this part of the brain or whether the part of the brain causes the behavior. In other words, which is the chicken and which is the egg, we don’t know. And we don’t know because neuroscience is a young science and it of the brain reacts to behavior changing medication, it means that this part of the brain is the source of that behavior. True? Makes common sense, doesn’t it? This makes sense, but it’s wrong. It’s wrong because we have no idea and we have no way of proving whether be the behavior has shaped this part of the brain or whether the part of the brain causes the behavior. In other words, which is the chicken and which is the egg, we don’t know. And we don’t know because neuroscience is a young science and it
18. 11:59 lacks randomized clinical trials and it lacks longitudinal studies following the same people over 30 40 50 years from the moment they were born until they died. This is long a longitudinal study. We don’t have any of this in neuroscience. Not only because it’s a young science but because the obstacles to such studies in neuroscience are formidable. And so many times control groups are missing. The studies are not randomized. They’re observational and it’s a mess. Neuroscience is a mess. Not because it’s lacks randomized clinical trials and it lacks longitudinal studies following the same people over 30 40 50 years from the moment they were born until they died. This is long a longitudinal study. We don’t have any of this in neuroscience. Not only because it’s a young science but because the obstacles to such studies in neuroscience are formidable. And so many times control groups are missing. The studies are not randomized. They’re observational and it’s a mess. Neuroscience is a mess. Not because it’s
19. 12:36 not a science. It is founded on biology. It’s founded on neurology. It is a science to a large degree, much more so than psychology. But it’s a mess because people in neuroscience known as neuroscientists either too have not behaved as scientists should rigorously. Next claim traits are hereditary. Behaviors are choices based on traits. And so behaviors are hereditary. Behaviors are determined by heredity. There’s a genetic component, a hereditary, heritable component in behavior. But this sounds plausible. This sounds not a science. It is founded on biology. It’s founded on neurology. It is a science to a large degree, much more so than psychology. But it’s a mess because people in neuroscience known as neuroscientists either too have not behaved as scientists should rigorously. Next claim traits are hereditary. Behaviors are choices based on traits. And so behaviors are hereditary. Behaviors are determined by heredity. There’s a genetic component, a hereditary, heritable component in behavior. But this sounds plausible. This sounds
20. 13:20 even probable. It makes sense. It’s very convincing. Traits are indeed heredity. hereditary traits are inherited or at least affected influenced by the genetic composition and in other members of the family such as parental figures. So traits are considered to be intimately linked with genetics with genes and behaviors and choices definitely reflect traits. They are somehow connected to traits. They are influenced by traits, maybe even determined by traits. We can’t be sure but there is an intimate linkage between even probable. It makes sense. It’s very convincing. Traits are indeed heredity. hereditary traits are inherited or at least affected influenced by the genetic composition and in other members of the family such as parental figures. So traits are considered to be intimately linked with genetics with genes and behaviors and choices definitely reflect traits. They are somehow connected to traits. They are influenced by traits, maybe even determined by traits. We can’t be sure but there is an intimate linkage between
21. 13:59 behaviors and traits. And so if traits are genetic, hereditary, in inheritable, you name it, you use any phrase you want. And behaviors are linked to them, then behaviors are also determined by heredity. But this makes common sense, but no scientific sense. Maybe behavior triggers the expression of genes which code for specific traits. I mean it could be that the sequence is traits, hereditary traits which lead to express behaviors. But the sequence could equally be certain behaviors trigger and certain experiences such as behaviors and traits. And so if traits are genetic, hereditary, in inheritable, you name it, you use any phrase you want. And behaviors are linked to them, then behaviors are also determined by heredity. But this makes common sense, but no scientific sense. Maybe behavior triggers the expression of genes which code for specific traits. I mean it could be that the sequence is traits, hereditary traits which lead to express behaviors. But the sequence could equally be certain behaviors trigger and certain experiences such as
22. 14:45 trauma trigger the expression of specific genes which code for the inherited traits. This is known as epigen epigenetics. So you see in science there are always two three 200 5,000 possibilities and it is the role of science to winnow out the shuff from to kind of eliminate. Science is a process of elimination. We eliminate possible explanations until we zero in on a single theory and we subject it to experiments and tests in order to falsify it. That’s the way science is done. Science doesn’t say trauma trigger the expression of specific genes which code for the inherited traits. This is known as epigen epigenetics. So you see in science there are always two three 200 5,000 possibilities and it is the role of science to winnow out the shuff from to kind of eliminate. Science is a process of elimination. We eliminate possible explanations until we zero in on a single theory and we subject it to experiments and tests in order to falsify it. That’s the way science is done. Science doesn’t say
23. 15:28 this makes sense. Never. Only a bad scientist would say this. A good scientist would say I have a phenomenon here. I have a sequence here. I have a connection here, a parent connection. A precedes B all the time and I need to find out why this is happening. Maybe hereditary traits affect behaviors and then behaviors may be determined to some extent by heredity. But maybe adopted behaviors trigger the expression of heritable traits in genes. Both are plausible. We need to study this much more. Next claim made by self-styled experts this makes sense. Never. Only a bad scientist would say this. A good scientist would say I have a phenomenon here. I have a sequence here. I have a connection here, a parent connection. A precedes B all the time and I need to find out why this is happening. Maybe hereditary traits affect behaviors and then behaviors may be determined to some extent by heredity. But maybe adopted behaviors trigger the expression of heritable traits in genes. Both are plausible. We need to study this much more. Next claim made by self-styled experts
24. 16:12 online. People interact with other people since day one. So that means that who people become is determined by others. Your identity is determined by others because from day one you’re interacting with others. Initially with your mother, later on or with the maternal figure, the caregiver and later on you interact with peers, role models, society at large in the workplace. So since from day one from minute from second one of life you you begin to interact with people that means who you become your core identity yourself are online. People interact with other people since day one. So that means that who people become is determined by others. Your identity is determined by others because from day one you’re interacting with others. Initially with your mother, later on or with the maternal figure, the caregiver and later on you interact with peers, role models, society at large in the workplace. So since from day one from minute from second one of life you you begin to interact with people that means who you become your core identity yourself are
25. 16:51 determined by by other people. All these are the outcomes of interactions with other people to a large extent. This is the philosophical foundation of object relations theory. Is this science? No, it’s not. It’s common sense. It’s possible that this is true. You know what? I will go a step further. It’s very likely that this is true. But we cannot say for sure if this is true because because we do not have a control group. We don’t have people who have never had any contact with other people. determined by by other people. All these are the outcomes of interactions with other people to a large extent. This is the philosophical foundation of object relations theory. Is this science? No, it’s not. It’s common sense. It’s possible that this is true. You know what? I will go a step further. It’s very likely that this is true. But we cannot say for sure if this is true because because we do not have a control group. We don’t have people who have never had any contact with other people.
26. 17:33 In order to establish that this claim is, this assertion is true. In order to be able to say with certainty, yes, who we are, our core identity, the self are determined by interactions with other people. We need to study people who have never interacted with other people. We need to have a control group. We have to we need to have one group of people who have spent their entire lives interacting with people and we need to compare them to another group of people who have never ever ever ever interacted In order to establish that this claim is, this assertion is true. In order to be able to say with certainty, yes, who we are, our core identity, the self are determined by interactions with other people. We need to study people who have never interacted with other people. We need to have a control group. We have to we need to have one group of people who have spent their entire lives interacting with people and we need to compare them to another group of people who have never ever ever ever interacted
27. 18:11 even for a split second with another person. And of course there are no such people and if we were to study them we would destroy the premise of the control group because it would this would mean an interaction with other people. Let’s proceed. Mothers and fathers are equally important in human development. You are told this maxim politically correct maxim time and again. Every self-styled experts expert would tell you this. And if you dare to imply that this is not true, you are going to be even for a split second with another person. And of course there are no such people and if we were to study them we would destroy the premise of the control group because it would this would mean an interaction with other people. Let’s proceed. Mothers and fathers are equally important in human development. You are told this maxim politically correct maxim time and again. Every self-styled experts expert would tell you this. And if you dare to imply that this is not true, you are going to be
28. 18:46 attacked as a misogynist and a sexist and a racist and an anti-mother activist and I don’t know what else and of course a narcissist. Mothers and fathers are equally important in human development. That is not science. That is not even common sense. It’s an opinion. It’s an evaluation. I don’t know what it is. Maybe so but there is no debate that mothers and fathers are important in different ways and that they have they have an exclusivity on these ways. In other words, the way the mother is attacked as a misogynist and a sexist and a racist and an anti-mother activist and I don’t know what else and of course a narcissist. Mothers and fathers are equally important in human development. That is not science. That is not even common sense. It’s an opinion. It’s an evaluation. I don’t know what it is. Maybe so but there is no debate that mothers and fathers are important in different ways and that they have they have an exclusivity on these ways. In other words, the way the mother is
29. 19:29 important to the child is something the father can never emulate. The father can never take over maternal functions unless the mother is absent in which case the the father is the mother. The maternal figure could be a grandmother, could be a grandfather, could be the biological mother in the majority of cases could be a caregiver. The person who fulfills the maternal role provides inputs into the personal development and growth of the child which the other partner cannot provide. So in a classical family in a nuclear important to the child is something the father can never emulate. The father can never take over maternal functions unless the mother is absent in which case the the father is the mother. The maternal figure could be a grandmother, could be a grandfather, could be the biological mother in the majority of cases could be a caregiver. The person who fulfills the maternal role provides inputs into the personal development and growth of the child which the other partner cannot provide. So in a classical family in a nuclear
30. 20:09 family in a conventional family we have a mother and a father biological mother biological father and they usually are female and male. So the female figure, the biological mother contributes to the development of a child in ways the father cannot. Period. And so yes, fathers and mothers contribute to the development of the child, but they have specific highly idiosyncratic roles and they cannot substitute for each other. They cannot replace each other. There are different aspects of personal growth and personal family in a conventional family we have a mother and a father biological mother biological father and they usually are female and male. So the female figure, the biological mother contributes to the development of a child in ways the father cannot. Period. And so yes, fathers and mothers contribute to the development of the child, but they have specific highly idiosyncratic roles and they cannot substitute for each other. They cannot replace each other. There are different aspects of personal growth and personal
31. 20:50 evol evolution that critically depend on the mother figure and other aspects which are the preserve of the paternal uh figure. Okay. Next claim made made abundantly on online is by self-styled experts. Parents are supposed to love their children equally. Another affiliated claim is parenting is wonderful. It’s a wonderful fulfilling experience. Both claims, by the way, have been disproven by science. This is not what studies show. Parents never ever love their children equally. There’s always a evol evolution that critically depend on the mother figure and other aspects which are the preserve of the paternal uh figure. Okay. Next claim made made abundantly on online is by self-styled experts. Parents are supposed to love their children equally. Another affiliated claim is parenting is wonderful. It’s a wonderful fulfilling experience. Both claims, by the way, have been disproven by science. This is not what studies show. Parents never ever love their children equally. There’s always a
32. 21:35 preferred child. Period. There’s always a golden child. Golden child is not a unique rare pathological aberration or dysfunction. Golden child child is the rule in every family with more than one child. One of the children is the golden child. One of the children is preferred. Period. This is universal. This is not a pathology. And also parenting is not a wonderful fulfilling experience. It’s a highly depressing experience which cuts your life short. That is what studies show. Here is an example of common sense. It preferred child. Period. There’s always a golden child. Golden child is not a unique rare pathological aberration or dysfunction. Golden child child is the rule in every family with more than one child. One of the children is the golden child. One of the children is preferred. Period. This is universal. This is not a pathology. And also parenting is not a wonderful fulfilling experience. It’s a highly depressing experience which cuts your life short. That is what studies show. Here is an example of common sense. It
33. 22:19 makes sense that you love all your children equally. It makes sense that being a parent is a wonderful experience, but your sense is wrong. Your common sense is wrong. In this particular case, there is a multitude of studies which demonstrate that both assertions, both these claims are completely completely mistaken and erroneous. And finally, not finally, I’m sorry, a next claim is men and women are psychologically fundamentally different in many ways. It is true that men and women are biologically different in many ways. makes sense that you love all your children equally. It makes sense that being a parent is a wonderful experience, but your sense is wrong. Your common sense is wrong. In this particular case, there is a multitude of studies which demonstrate that both assertions, both these claims are completely completely mistaken and erroneous. And finally, not finally, I’m sorry, a next claim is men and women are psychologically fundamentally different in many ways. It is true that men and women are biologically different in many ways.
34. 23:04 That part is true. No one can deny it. Of course, from the level of of chromosomes to up to um the body shape, secondary sex um characteristics and so on. All these are very different in men and women. No one uh would claim otherwise. It has nothing to do with common sense. This is an observation. But do these differences which are biological in nature extend to psychology? Is there a major psychological difference between men and women? The answer is we don’t know. The answer is not yes. The answer is we don’t know. That part is true. No one can deny it. Of course, from the level of of chromosomes to up to um the body shape, secondary sex um characteristics and so on. All these are very different in men and women. No one uh would claim otherwise. It has nothing to do with common sense. This is an observation. But do these differences which are biological in nature extend to psychology? Is there a major psychological difference between men and women? The answer is we don’t know. The answer is not yes. The answer is we don’t know.
35. 23:45 How do we isolate confounding factors? How do we for example account for social expectations? assigned performative gender roles. How do we know which part of the psychological difference between men and women is socially determined, culturally bound depends on the period in history where you live, social expectations and mores and conventions and norms, scripts handed out by parental figures and socialization agents. All these contribute to the psychological observable psychological differences How do we isolate confounding factors? How do we for example account for social expectations? assigned performative gender roles. How do we know which part of the psychological difference between men and women is socially determined, culturally bound depends on the period in history where you live, social expectations and mores and conventions and norms, scripts handed out by parental figures and socialization agents. All these contribute to the psychological observable psychological differences
36. 24:25 between men and women. But if we were to isolate men and women on an island with zero interaction, zero social context, zero cultural context, zero expectations, norms, mores, nothing, would they be different psychologically? We don’t know because we have never conducted such a cruel experiment. nor is it possible I believe to conduct such a study. So the answer to the question are men and women psychologically fundamentally different is we don’t know. Maybe personally what I think no they’re not. between men and women. But if we were to isolate men and women on an island with zero interaction, zero social context, zero cultural context, zero expectations, norms, mores, nothing, would they be different psychologically? We don’t know because we have never conducted such a cruel experiment. nor is it possible I believe to conduct such a study. So the answer to the question are men and women psychologically fundamentally different is we don’t know. Maybe personally what I think no they’re not.
37. 25:06 But that’s my common sense. My common sense is that any difference any observable difference between men and women which is not biological is 100% determined by culture and society. But that’s my common sense. that is not science. On rare in rare niches of psychology, we do have an indication that I may be right. For example, we know that there is no psychonamic or psychological difference between female narcissists and male narcissists. Yes, you’ve heard me correctly. The psychology is But that’s my common sense. My common sense is that any difference any observable difference between men and women which is not biological is 100% determined by culture and society. But that’s my common sense. that is not science. On rare in rare niches of psychology, we do have an indication that I may be right. For example, we know that there is no psychonamic or psychological difference between female narcissists and male narcissists. Yes, you’ve heard me correctly. The psychology is
38. 25:44 identical. So, why the differences in manifestation in the manifestation of the disorder? Why does the disorder express itself differently in men and women? The answer is 100%. Culture and society, societal expectations, behavioral norms, mores and conventions and all all kinds of other external contextual factors. So here’s an indication that maybe it’s all out there that fundamentally men and women are indistinguishable as far as their psychology goes. Next um proclamation or promalgation by identical. So, why the differences in manifestation in the manifestation of the disorder? Why does the disorder express itself differently in men and women? The answer is 100%. Culture and society, societal expectations, behavioral norms, mores and conventions and all all kinds of other external contextual factors. So here’s an indication that maybe it’s all out there that fundamentally men and women are indistinguishable as far as their psychology goes. Next um proclamation or promalgation by
39. 26:26 self-styled experts is that social contagion explains many individual choices. The most recent example transgenderism. transgender uh transgenderism is not real. It is a social contagion. Some people even go as far as saying that there is no such thing as gender dysphoria, which is wrong. Of course, there is. But coming back to the claim that you can attribute most of the behavioral variation or variability to social factors, imitation, emulation, role models and so on so forth. Social social contagion is said to be inexurable and self-styled experts is that social contagion explains many individual choices. The most recent example transgenderism. transgender uh transgenderism is not real. It is a social contagion. Some people even go as far as saying that there is no such thing as gender dysphoria, which is wrong. Of course, there is. But coming back to the claim that you can attribute most of the behavioral variation or variability to social factors, imitation, emulation, role models and so on so forth. Social social contagion is said to be inexurable and
40. 27:10 irresistible kind of force of nature. But if this were true, why do we insist on the existence of constructs such as personality disorders and personal accountability? If it’s all a matter of contagion, then surely we may be acquiring personality disorders the same way by osmosis. But we get infected with personality disorder. If you can explain a lot of of of someone’s behavior by referring to social parameters, so the social context and social determinants, then how can you hold someone to account? How can you irresistible kind of force of nature. But if this were true, why do we insist on the existence of constructs such as personality disorders and personal accountability? If it’s all a matter of contagion, then surely we may be acquiring personality disorders the same way by osmosis. But we get infected with personality disorder. If you can explain a lot of of of someone’s behavior by referring to social parameters, so the social context and social determinants, then how can you hold someone to account? How can you
41. 27:58 hold someone responsible for his or her actions? If social contagion is the very same as viral contagion, we surely don’t hold people for getting sick. don’t hold people responsible or accountable for getting sick with COVID 19. Then why should we hold them responsible if they get sick with, shall we say, narcissistic personality disorder or psychopathy? If social contagion is an organizing principle, if it does explain that individual choices are socially determined, not individually determined, hold someone responsible for his or her actions? If social contagion is the very same as viral contagion, we surely don’t hold people for getting sick. don’t hold people responsible or accountable for getting sick with COVID 19. Then why should we hold them responsible if they get sick with, shall we say, narcissistic personality disorder or psychopathy? If social contagion is an organizing principle, if it does explain that individual choices are socially determined, not individually determined,
42. 28:36 we should hold no one responsible. And that would tend to obiate or negate the very existence of psychology and psychiatry because the only remaining pseudocience would be sociology or anthropology. If if everything we are and if everything we do comes from the outside, it’s determined by the outside, then we do not exist as individuals and there’s no point to study individuals. We need to study only society, only relationships, interpersonal relationships, only interactions. We don’t need to study individuals. And we should hold no one responsible. And that would tend to obiate or negate the very existence of psychology and psychiatry because the only remaining pseudocience would be sociology or anthropology. If if everything we are and if everything we do comes from the outside, it’s determined by the outside, then we do not exist as individuals and there’s no point to study individuals. We need to study only society, only relationships, interpersonal relationships, only interactions. We don’t need to study individuals. And
43. 29:18 obviously this would have major implications when it comes to, for example, the criminal code and our understanding of communicable mental health issues, allegedly communicable mental health issues such as transgenderism, personality disorders, and maybe more. Finally, and as I told you, this these are seven examples or it’s a sample a non-representative sample. This is these are seven examples out of maybe 700 or 7,000 claims made by self-styled experts who have no idea what they’re talking about obviously this would have major implications when it comes to, for example, the criminal code and our understanding of communicable mental health issues, allegedly communicable mental health issues such as transgenderism, personality disorders, and maybe more. Finally, and as I told you, this these are seven examples or it’s a sample a non-representative sample. This is these are seven examples out of maybe 700 or 7,000 claims made by self-styled experts who have no idea what they’re talking about
44. 29:54 because they don’t have a clue as to how science works. Final claim is addiction is a disease of the brain. It’s a very politically correct claim. It’s a very woke woke claim. It’s a claim that puts everyone’s mind at ease. You know, it’s not the addict’s fault. It’s not even society’s fault. It’s a brain disorder, a brain abnormality. What can you do? Nothing to be done. Move on. Similarly, people who claim that narcissistic personality disorder is a brain abnormality or because they don’t have a clue as to how science works. Final claim is addiction is a disease of the brain. It’s a very politically correct claim. It’s a very woke woke claim. It’s a claim that puts everyone’s mind at ease. You know, it’s not the addict’s fault. It’s not even society’s fault. It’s a brain disorder, a brain abnormality. What can you do? Nothing to be done. Move on. Similarly, people who claim that narcissistic personality disorder is a brain abnormality or
45. 30:26 genetically determined are doing the same thing. You know, it’s not your fault. It’s not the mother’s fault. It’s not the father’s fault. It’s not the victim’s fault. It’s no one’s fault. It’s a force of nature. It’s an accident. Regrettably, none of this is supported by science. None of this. If addiction is a disease of the brain, then how come people go sober and then on the wagon and then off the wagon and then break the habit and then reacquire it? genetically determined are doing the same thing. You know, it’s not your fault. It’s not the mother’s fault. It’s not the father’s fault. It’s not the victim’s fault. It’s no one’s fault. It’s a force of nature. It’s an accident. Regrettably, none of this is supported by science. None of this. If addiction is a disease of the brain, then how come people go sober and then on the wagon and then off the wagon and then break the habit and then reacquire it?
46. 30:58 If addiction is a disease of the brain, how can an alcoholic of 20 years standing suddenly from one day to the next stop drinking? I I managed the rehab in Israel for a brief period and then I served as a consultant to rehab centers in the United States. I can tell you people just decide on the spur of the moment they hit rock bottom or something happens family pressure I don’t know what they just decide from one day to the next they stop smoking from one day to the next they stop drinking from one If addiction is a disease of the brain, how can an alcoholic of 20 years standing suddenly from one day to the next stop drinking? I I managed the rehab in Israel for a brief period and then I served as a consultant to rehab centers in the United States. I can tell you people just decide on the spur of the moment they hit rock bottom or something happens family pressure I don’t know what they just decide from one day to the next they stop smoking from one day to the next they stop drinking from one
47. 31:37 day to the next they stop doing drugs I I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes and they never ever go back that is not how a biological disease behaves There is not instant remission by choice. You can’t decide to not have cancer from one day to the next. To get rid of your t tuberculosis from one day to the next. You can’t decide to not have COVID 19 from one day to the next. This is nonsense. Alcoholism addiction in general, it’s not a brain disease. It’s nonsense because it is subject 100% day to the next they stop doing drugs I I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes and they never ever go back that is not how a biological disease behaves There is not instant remission by choice. You can’t decide to not have cancer from one day to the next. To get rid of your t tuberculosis from one day to the next. You can’t decide to not have COVID 19 from one day to the next. This is nonsense. Alcoholism addiction in general, it’s not a brain disease. It’s nonsense because it is subject 100%
48. 32:16 to free will, to choices, to decisions that people make. We also don’t know if the changes to the brain that we do observe in alcoholics and more generally in addicts. We do observe changes to the brain but we have no idea if it is the addiction that has caused the changes to the brain or the changes to the brain, the abnormalities in the brain that have caused the addiction. We have no idea. Period. There are no studies to tell us. This is again a chicken and egg situation. And as long as the chain of to free will, to choices, to decisions that people make. We also don’t know if the changes to the brain that we do observe in alcoholics and more generally in addicts. We do observe changes to the brain but we have no idea if it is the addiction that has caused the changes to the brain or the changes to the brain, the abnormalities in the brain that have caused the addiction. We have no idea. Period. There are no studies to tell us. This is again a chicken and egg situation. And as long as the chain of
49. 32:55 causation is not clear, as long as we don’t know what leads to what, we cannot make such hubristic megalomaniacal grandio claims such as addiction or alcoholism is a disease of the brain. That is not a scientific statement. That is propaganda. Okay, I give you a few example where common sense fails us which is why we as a human spec species invented and came up with and conjured up science. causation is not clear, as long as we don’t know what leads to what, we cannot make such hubristic megalomaniacal grandio claims such as addiction or alcoholism is a disease of the brain. That is not a scientific statement. That is propaganda. Okay, I give you a few example where common sense fails us which is why we as a human spec species invented and came up with and conjured up science.