Podcast Summary
Updates on SARS CoV 2, sex and gender, and announcements: The Dark Horse Podcast covers various topics, including COVID updates, sex and gender discussions, and announcements for their upcoming book and Patreon, while expressing gratitude to their supporters and offering exclusive content.
The Dark Horse Podcast livestream, episode 90, covers various topics including updates on SARS CoV 2 and COVID, sex and gender, and announcements for their upcoming book and Patreon. The hosts express gratitude to their Patreon supporters for helping them continue their work. They also mention some technical issues with their appearance on the livestream. Additionally, they promote their new merchandise, the Goliath T-shirts, and encourage viewers to buy them from their official store to support the creators. The hosts also mention their new Substack, Natural Selections, and plan to discuss its second post during the podcast. They have two ads from their sponsor, Public Goods. Overall, the podcast aims to provide insightful discussions on various topics while engaging with their audience and offering exclusive content for their supporters.
Everyday Essentials from Public Goods and Pain Relief from Omax Cryofreeze: Public Goods offers high-quality essentials with a subscription service, while Omax Cryofreeze provides temporary pain relief with natural ingredients.
Public Goods offers high-quality everyday essentials with carefully sourced ingredients, affordable prices, and tasteful packaging. Their subscription service simplifies shopping by allowing members to buy various essentials in one place. Public Goods can be seen as an "everything store." Meanwhile, Omax Cryofreeze provides temporary pain relief through a natural roll-on solution with menthol and CBD. The offer for Dark Horse listeners is $15 off the first Public Goods order and 20% off a full bottle of Omax Cryofreeze. Public Goods' index from the book includes various topics, from genetics to gorillas.
Speakers remain committed to evidence-based info and unified response to COVID-19: Speakers continue to promote accurate evidence and unified response to COVID-19, despite facing criticism and challenges, emphasizing the importance of open dialogue and a multi-pronged approach.
Despite facing significant pushback, the speakers remain committed to providing evidence-based information and promoting a unified response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. They have recently published a long-form article outlining their views on various aspects of the pandemic, including the effectiveness and safety of Ivermectin, natural immunity, and the politicization of the discussion. The speakers acknowledge the challenges they face, including vicious and unkind criticism, but view it as an opportunity to clarify misconceptions and work towards policies that serve everyone. They emphasize the importance of remembering that we are all on the same team and planet, and that a multi-pronged approach is necessary to address the pandemic effectively. The speakers aim to provide a clear and accurate representation of the evidence, and encourage open and respectful dialogue to advance our collective understanding and response to the pandemic.
Ensuring truth in criticisms: It's crucial to differentiate between truthful criticisms and false claims. Misrepresentations can reveal the motivations of the critic rather than the actions of the criticized.
While it's important to consider criticisms and potential consequences of one's actions, it's equally important to ensure that criticisms are based on truth and not false claims. Misrepresentations of what one has said or done can be evidence of the critic's motivations rather than a reflection of one's own beliefs or actions. Furthermore, when it comes to public health policies and decisions, lives are indeed at stake. However, it's not fair or accurate to hold individuals responsible for the potential consequences of those policies if they offer alternative perspectives or criticisms. The responsibility lies in interpreting the evidence and making informed decisions. When public health officials fail to provide accurate and effective guidance, it's essential to examine the reasons behind their failures, whether it's incompetence or corruption. Ultimately, individuals have the right to engage in discussions and debates about public health policies without being held accountable for potential negative outcomes. The goal should be to promote truth, transparency, and informed decision-making.
Motivations behind COVID-19 policies questioned: Speakers acknowledged facing backlash, emphasized good intentions, and discussed concerns of institutional capture in academia, extending beyond humanities to sciences.
The motivation behind COVID-19 policies may not solely be based on public health or individual well-being. Questions like vaccinating those already immune, treating young and old similarly, and using safe tools to complement vaccines raise concerns about alternative agendas. The speakers emphasized their intentions to do good for current and future generations, despite facing backlash. They also highlighted the issue of institutional capture in academia, which has been a concern for some time. However, they argued that the problem extends beyond the humanities and into the sciences, where funding models and perverse incentives hinder solid, careful thought and critical evaluation.
Pressure to conform in academia can lead to anti-scientific outcomes: University funding pressures can result in scientists producing work that aligns with conventional wisdom and lacks scientific rigor, potentially leading to corruption and a lack of expertise in the scientific process for PhD graduates.
The scientific process is not always as pure as it seems, and the pressure to please those in positions of authority and secure funding can lead to anti-scientific outcomes. The discussion highlighted the issue of PhD students being awarded degrees for work that doesn't make them experts in the scientific process as a common problem. However, it also emphasized that this issue is linked to the way universities are funded, which creates pressure to produce work that aligns with conventional wisdom and doesn't challenge it. This can result in corruption and a lack of scientific rigor, which was evident in the grievance studies but is also prevalent in the sciences. Scientists, as the primary source of funding for universities, are often exempted from other responsibilities, such as governance, and this can contribute to the problem. The discussion suggested that this issue has been prevalent for decades in the Western world and may have preceded the rise of grievance studies.
Financial insecurity in academia leads to potential corruption: Academic corruption can occur due to financial instability, leading to skewed governance and compromised research
The pressure to bring in research funding in academia can lead to scientists minimizing their teaching responsibilities and involvement in governance, resulting in a skewed representation within governance and an increased risk of corruption due to financial insecurity. This can lead to issues such as the "grievance studies kerfuffle," where scientific research is influenced by economic forces rather than academic rigor. This phenomenon is similar to corruption in other industries or nations, where people in positions of power are easily swayed by offers or incentives due to financial instability. In academia, these incentives can take the form of non-physical bribes, such as offers of resources or opportunities. It's important to address the financial insecurity in academia to prevent these issues and maintain the integrity of scientific research.
Corruption in Science: Delaying Progress and Causing Harm: Corruption in science, especially in fields with financial stakes, can hinder progress and potentially cause harm. Identify trends and patterns early on for a critical and skeptical approach.
Corruption in science, particularly in fields with significant financial stakes, can render the science feeble and make it difficult to discern truth from falsehood. This corruption can have serious consequences, including delaying progress and potentially causing harm. The speaker notes that they have seen examples of this in various scientific fields, with things getting particularly bad in areas related to medicine. Despite this, they acknowledge that their perspective may not be persuasive to everyone. However, they argue that their ability to identify trends and patterns early on, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, is a reason to listen to their perspective. They also raise the issue of potential "pandemic profiteers" and the potential harm they could cause if left unchecked. Ultimately, they encourage a critical and skeptical approach to scientific information, particularly in areas with significant financial interests at play.
Pandemic profiteering and its impact on public health advice: The importance of transparency and accurate information in navigating the pandemic, as profiteering and inaccurate advice can put people at risk and hinder progress towards a post-pandemic world
The ongoing pandemic has highlighted various forms of profiteering, including war profiteering and pandemic profiteering. The latter raises concerns about the impact on public health advice, with some advice not making sense and potentially putting people at risk. The rot within the system, whether due to ineptitude or corruption, needs answering. Andrew Sullivan's perspective on returning to normal life, including not wearing masks, is understandable but predicated on inaccuracies. The primary reason for vaccinated individuals to wear masks is not just to protect the unvaccinated but also to safeguard themselves from the escape variants and the reduced protection offered by the vaccines. The ongoing debate underscores the importance of transparency and accurate information in navigating the pandemic.
Vaccines offer limited protection for young adults against severe COVID-19: Despite vaccines providing some protection, they don't significantly reduce risk of death or hospitalization for under-45s, immunity may not last, and variants could make them less effective. Stay vigilant with safety measures.
The vaccines provide some protection against severe illness and death from COVID-19, even in the case of breakthrough infections. However, a recent analysis by Dr. Rollergater suggests that the vaccines do not significantly reduce the risk of death or hospitalization for individuals under 45 years old who contract the virus, regardless of vaccination status. Additionally, the vaccines' immunity may not last long, and the emergence of variants could make current vaccines less effective. Therefore, it's crucial to stay vigilant and continue following safety guidelines, such as wearing masks and social distancing, to protect against infection and prevent the spread of the virus.
Vaccine Effectiveness: Misconceptions and Limitations: Older adults benefit significantly from vaccines in reducing death and hospitalization risks, but for younger individuals, the impact on infection, severe disease, hospitalization, and death is the same – prevention is key. The rollout of vaccines has been slow and inconsistent, potentially worsening the pandemic situation.
The analysis of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness, particularly in relation to deaths and hospitalizations, can be misleading. For older adults (65 and above), vaccines do reduce the risk of death and hospitalization if they contract the virus. However, for younger individuals, the pattern falls apart, and getting vaccinated does not significantly reduce the likelihood of these outcomes if they get infected. The author argues that there seems to be a sales pitch suggesting reduced likelihood of infection, severe disease, hospitalization, and death, but these are essentially the same reduction – if you don't get COVID, you won't experience these outcomes. The analysis also suggests that the likelihood of getting infected is increasing due to vaccine immunity fading and the dominance of variants. The author criticizes the slow rollout of vaccines and lack of a concerted effort to wait for sufficient supply before deploying them universally, which could have potentially minimized the ongoing pandemic. In essence, it is crucial to recognize the misconceptions surrounding vaccine effectiveness and understand the limitations of the current vaccines in ending the pandemic.
Impact of historical gender roles on modern society: Understanding historical gender roles can help predict which ones will persist in modern society, impacting issues like vaccine distribution and economic opportunities.
Despite having access to high-quality vaccines and guidance, the pandemic is far from over due to various external factors. The speaker expresses concern about potential profiteering and jockeying for position among vaccine manufacturers. Additionally, the discussion touched on the concept of division of labor and its historical impact on gender roles. Among hunter-gatherers, women were primarily responsible for gathering food and breastfeeding, which kept birth intervals long and birth rates low. With the advent of agriculture, women's roles became more constrained, leading to an increase in fertility and a decrease in their involvement in economic, religious, and other culturally important realms. The speaker suggests understanding the historical context of these roles to determine which ones are likely to change in the 21st century.
Recognizing and Embracing Gender Differences: Gender differences do not determine ability or potential, but acknowledging and respecting them promotes a diverse and inclusive society, leading to equal opportunities for all.
Men and women exhibit significant differences on average, but these differences do not negate individual abilities or potential. Across various domains, including interests, intelligence, and neuroscience, there are observable differences between the sexes. However, these differences do not establish inherent superiority or inferiority. Instead, they highlight the value of diversity and the importance of equal opportunities for all. Throughout history and across cultures, gendered roles have existed, but they are not set in stone. People's preferences and choices should be respected, and traditional gender norms should not limit opportunities. Recognizing and embracing our differences can lead to a stronger, more inclusive society. Ultimately, striving for equal opportunity under the law is a more realistic and achievable goal than demanding equal outcomes in every occupation.
Historical and Economic Factors Contributing to Gender Pay Gap: The gender pay gap is influenced by both historical sexism and economic factors, requiring a nuanced understanding for effective solutions.
The gender pay gap and workplace inequality cannot be solely attributed to historical sexism or inherent bias against women's work. Instead, economic factors, such as the historical lack of monetization of women's work, have contributed to the current disparities. It's important to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and avoid oversimplifying it or jumping to conclusions of bigotry. While structural corrections are necessary, it's essential to recognize that not all areas of work, including those that are traditionally male-dominated and undesirable, are being advocated for equitably. The conversation around gender equality requires a nuanced understanding of historical and economic factors.
Division of labor and gender roles: The division of labor, which can vary based on cultural norms, does not determine inherent abilities or interests, and both men and women are capable of excelling in various tasks.
The division of labor, which varies in terms of which sex is responsible for certain tasks across different cultures, does not inherently have anything to do with underlying differences in ability or interest. This concept was discussed in relation to weaving, which is considered a man's job in some cultures and a woman's job in others. This illustrates the value of division of labor, and the fact that these divisions can go in both directions shows that both men and women are capable of excelling in various tasks. Additionally, there was a discussion about a Harvard lecturer named Carol Hoven, who spoke about the importance of acknowledging biological differences between men and women in a medical school context. Despite her comments being scientifically accurate and not transphobic, she faced criticism for her views. This highlights the importance of being able to have open and respectful conversations about sex and gender, without fear of backlash or being labeled as harmful or illiterate.
Denial or distortion of biological facts can have serious consequences: Ignoring fundamental truths about male and female sexes can lead to societal instability, falling standards, and compromised essential services
The denial or distortion of biological facts, such as the difference between male and female sexes, can have serious consequences on various aspects of society, including education, medicine, and governance. This can lead to confusion, inability to conduct proper research, and even compromise the quality of essential services. It's important to acknowledge and respect individual identities while ensuring that fundamental truths are not overlooked or suppressed. The consequences of ignoring these facts can result in societal instability, falling standards of living, and a decline in the quality of services like healthcare and education. It's crucial to maintain a balance between respecting individual identities and preserving the truth for the betterment of society as a whole.
Transgender athletes and women's sports: Fairness and respect: The debate around transgender athletes in women's sports raises concerns for fairness and potential advantages, not universally accepted by all, impacting women's sports and athletes' respect.
The ongoing debate around transgender athletes participating in women's sports raises significant concerns regarding fairness and the potential for unfair advantages. The IOC's stance, as expressed by their medical and science director, that everyone agrees trans women are women, is not universally accepted. Critics argue that the advantages gained during male puberty, even with testosterone suppression, remain significant. This issue is not just about individual athletes but the potential erasure of women's sports. The recent case of Laurel Hubbard in weightlifting, despite being hailed as a victory for trans rights, is seen as a major setback for women's sports. The importance of recognizing the unique characteristics and needs of women, especially in sports, is crucial to ensure fair competition and respect for all athletes.
Fair competition in sports: Equalizing opponents and ensuring gender balance: In sports, fair competition requires matching opponents appropriately, particularly in coed games where gender balance is essential. However, imbalances can lead to distortions in the women's game, while capture and activism in various sectors pose broader threats to institutional functioning.
In sports, particularly Ultimate Frisbee, it's crucial to ensure fair competition by matching opponents appropriately. This concept is essential in coed games, where having an equal number of men and women on the field is required. In all-male games, there's a focus on raw physicality, but the points are short, and not everyone gets to touch the disc. Conversely, in women's games, there are more short passes, less focus on raw power, and longer points. However, the women's game can become tedious due to its strategic nature. On a broader note, the discussion touched upon the dangers of capture and activism in various sectors, including politics, business, academia, and social media. These forces can lead to systemic incoherence and distortions, ultimately threatening the functioning of our institutions. The warning against this phenomenon was given earlier, and its manifestation in various areas underscores the urgency of addressing this issue. In summary, fairness and appropriate matching in sports, and the potential dangers of capture and activism in various sectors, are two key takeaways from our discussion.
Discussing bees, sleep, and live Q&A session: Submit questions for live Q&A at darkhorseubmissions.com, support creators directly, and join Patreon, Substack, and merchandise store for exclusive content.
During this episode of Dark Horse Podcast, the hosts discussed various topics including bees, sleep, and their upcoming live Q&A session. They reminded listeners and viewers to submit their questions at darkhorseubmissions.com, with priority given to those related to the topics discussed. They also encouraged people to join their Patreon, subscribe to their Substack newsletter, and check out their merchandise store. The hosts emphasized the importance of supporting creators directly and warned against buying merchandise from unauthorized sellers. They ended the episode by encouraging their audience to achieve greatness, stand up for what's right, and take care of themselves and their loved ones. The next episode will be out in a week, and they encouraged everyone to subscribe to all four of their channels.
