BONUS - Interview with Brian Morgan - Think Deeply, Write Clearly

Hello. My name is Jesan Sorrells, and this is the Leadership Lessons from the Great Books podcast, bonus. There's no book reading on these bonus episodes, or at least there's no usually no book reading, although we've been breaking that rule lately. These are typically interviews, rants, raves, insights, and other audio musings and conversations

about leadership. Because listening to me and an interesting guest talk about leadership for at least a couple of hours, is still better than reading and trying to understand yet another business book, even that business book that's been sitting on your shelf for the last six months that you got for Christmas, even though that was, like, two months ago. Our guest today, Brian Morgan, is a founder who has

a system. Quoting directly from his website, Brian Morgan built the think deeply, write clearly system to address the gap between the requirements of the college education system even at excellent schools and the depth of thinking and writing needed in business.

The system grew out of his 15 experience as managing editor at one of New York City's premier environmental planning and engineering firms and also from his teaching work at the New Jersey Institute of Technology among other New York City area schools. But having a website that is touting a system is not the reason we are talking with him today on the show. It's a nice little extra thing, but it's not the real reason we're talking

with him on the show. That would violate one of our core principles. We're talking with Brian on the show today because he thinks deeply about writing, education, reading technology, and that the and how all those areas intersect with, well, leadership. And he writes clearly about all of those areas. And in a world of algorithmic and I'm gonna use a term here. So if

you're got kids in the car, mute me here. But, in a world of algorithmic, quote, unquote, instidification, to borrow a term from Cory Doctorow, which describes the gradual deterioration of online platforms, but increasingly can be applied to the deterioration of communication in general, understanding in particular, and critical thinking most narrowly, Morgan's approach to deepening human thinking through writing might just be the revolution we need right

now. And I haven't even gotten into the impact that the large language models are going to have on human cognition. We're already starting to see the signs, and we may talk about that today. But Brian has thought about all of this and more, and we're gonna talk with him, like I said, about all of it here on the podcast today. So welcome to the podcast, Brian. How are you doing? Good. Thank you for the opportunity, my friend. Appreciate appreciate your time today as well. Absolutely.

So tell all our listeners who you are and what do you do and all that. Well, I mean, I think you've done a nice you've done a nice introduction. If if people hang out on LinkedIn, they probably, know me for the business that I run, which is, both a a a corporate training and also marketing and sales company. But those two bend together in one specific space, which is which is really, I I would say, I help people put language to their

thinking. And that begs the question, of course, because that that's not particularly new or revolutionary in and of itself. That it begs the question really, what is the quality of the thought that is being expressed? And and that maybe that maybe shouldn't be as quite as revolutionary as it is. Right? Maybe we should think about the quality of the thoughts that we want to express, and and that but that really

goes into both directions. Right? Like, if you work for an institution where where people make decisions based you work for the United States Federal Reserve or you you work for a consulting company so that people are gonna make decisions based on your language, then then they need to know the quality of the thinking behind that language. They can make accurate decisions. And it's sort of the same

thing, not not sort of, in the marketing and sales space. If we were to indicate to somebody that this is our view of the world and and that because of this view in the world, the services that we provide are accurate reflections of what we see the world to be, then

then we want the quality of that thinking to be to be good. And, unfortunately, we live in a in a world both on the institutional, let's just say corporate side, as well as the entrepreneurial sales, marketing, podcast e side, where we care a lot about getting behind the microphone and we care maybe not as much as we should about what is the quality of the thought that is reflected in the speech that we use

or we say behind that microphone. And I think that's probably that's that's where those two things meet together, if that makes sense to you.

Yeah. That makes sense. Matter of fact, that makes a lot of sense, And it particularly aligns with the work that I'm trying to do on this podcast by reading novels and essays and nonfiction and fiction and trying to pull leadership lessons, from spaces that have not been watered down by, business book jargon, or by logos or by a lack of quality, and I did say logos, yes, or by a lack of quality of thought.

So let's start off with that sticky area because listeners are going to are going to hear this and they're gonna go quality of thought. All my thoughts are quality. All of my thoughts deserve to be spat out on the Internet or on social media or all of my thoughts deserve to be tweeted. I mean, we have an entire platform, Twitter, that is devoted to the it is devoted to shortening the distance between my thought and expression. And I am algorithmically rewarded for the hot take, and I am not

algorithmically rewarded for the slow burn. So how do we I guess maybe the core question here is this. What does quality of thought mean in a time such as this? Yeah. Well okay. I I love this question because because it implies so many, I think, stunningly important things that we don't we just don't get enough of a chance to discuss in the world. And and so the first thing is everyone has a right to their own thinking. Right? No. That

and and we should. This is this is not a thing that I would even if I don't agree with someone's thinking or I think it's shallow or I think it's stupid or whatever, I would I would still say, please continue thinking. Like, you should do that, and the world should do

that. And and, like, don't stop now just because just because some idiot on on your lovely podcast, you know, is is is gonna indicate that that the quality of thinking out there on social media platforms or whatever is not particularly useful. But but it begs the next purpose of the question, which is why would why would we want to share that thinking? Right? That that could be the fact that I have the thought and the fact that I have the right to share it doesn't necessarily answer the

question, what is the purpose of sharing it? And and this is, to me, where we get screwed up. And and so and so if I had to put my my initial thoughts together on that, it would go something like this. Most people want to share their thoughts because some very unthoughtful marketing adviser or something told them that if they were top of mind and they had a personal brand, that other people would see them as credible and amazing, and they would make money, and they'd

get better jobs, and they'd be promoted. And it's all bullshit, of course. Like, no. None none of that actually happens, but unless your name's Kardashian. And and and but it but it but it but but the Kardashians are sort of interesting here. Right? Because to me, this is sort of this is sort of the point that that the Kardashians do that, and I know who they are, but I

wouldn't hire them to do anything. Right? That that and so and so the only thing the Kardashians actually have accomplished is is that people know who they are and advertisers are halfway decent at making money from them. But certainly, no one benefits from, from from the wisdom that they share or don't share. We don't we don't see it.

And and so if your if your business or if your approach to your business or your job or whatever is based on how well you make sense of the world, then it begs the question, is a constant litany of all of the thoughts that you have the best way to display the credibility that you bring to your

thinking? And and the answer is almost certainly not. And and so and so the minute the minute we we have this conversation, we end up saying, well, if the purpose of my writing is now no longer if is now no longer to build my personal brand, which is the dumb way of looking at it, but it is to help other people, meaning meaning my my job now is is to put language into the world that helps other people live better lives. And from that, I also make money, have have a better brand, be

seen as an expert in a space. Then then it begs the question, what is the quality of my thinking that is necessary to actually help somebody? At which point you realize, well, it's very rare that we live in that language space inside our own heads. It's very easy to say, I don't like what's happening with the government. It's very hard to say, I've been thinking about why I don't like about what's happening with the government and what I'd prefer to see different and

why. And and the outcomes that I think the government wants, which is different than the outcomes that I might want, and this is the quality of thinking that I'm bringing to this discussion. And so you can build a personal brand with your complaints, but you won't build any trust for your thinking. But the minute we get to to discussing not what I think, but why and how I think it, you can gain a lot of intimate trust with our

thinking. And that and if language is tied immediately to that depth of thought, then then all of a sudden the world moves in your direction pretty quickly. But I think we begin to see that without that reflection of why do I think that and and and what is a process that I've that I've gone through to to to think why that's important to other people, then what we have is a whole bunch of noise on social media among other places. And it's not that people don't have the right to that noise.

They have the right. It's just not particularly useful to them or to anybody else. But does that make sense, or how do you hear that? No. That that that makes that makes a lot of sense. If we begin with what is the purpose of sharing my thought. Right? What is the thing that I want people to do? Which, by the way, good marketing. And I'm a fan of the writer Seth Godin. He's also a marketer. He does write deceptively

simple sentences that have deep thoughts in them. I don't know that I agree with all of those sentences, but the thought is definitely there. Mhmm. And you can tell in the nature of his writing versus the writing of a person like I'm gonna throw him under the bus because what the heck? Why not? He's not listening to the show. Gary Vaynerchuk. Right? Like, that guy is monetizing everything to the nth degree. He would even monetize his facial

hair if he could get away with it. Right? And he's sort of an exaggeration of sort of the worst examples. You mentioned the Kardashians. Sort of the worst examples of of of fame culture, or the outcomes of fame culture, in a a fragmented media environment where it seems as though shouting your your purposeless thoughts louder in order to get attention in the public square seems to be the mode for most marketers. And there is a growing

category of people because I do believe there's a tension here. There's a growing category of people, and this is why I have you on the show. I put myself in that category. There's a growing category of people who are tired of garbage thinking and garbage writing. Now they don't know where to go because the systems haven't been built out for them over the last twenty years. Maybe they'll start being built out over the next twenty years.

And so because they have nowhere to go, they're listening to podcasts or they're writing on Substack or they're, you know, they're they're they're in those spaces where long form, I hate this term, but long form content is is the thing. Right? And then the other thought that I have these were all half formed thoughts, but probably this is maybe the the most controversial thought that I have. This is the most controversial thought that I have.

What you're talking about is gatekeeping myself, and why would I wanna do that? I'm being rewarded for not gatekeeping myself. Yeah. And the gatekeepers who used to stop me, and I'll use a perfect example for this. When there used to be newspapers and people used to write letters to the editor, there was always a crank file. Mhmm. Mhmm. And and the editor of the newspaper, managing or otherwise, acted as a stop on that person's crank thinking.

So you mentioned the government. I have a problem with the government, and it's the alien's fault. Mhmm. And the newspaper editor looked at that thought, which might have been fully thought out on mimeograph paper, and and said we're not publishing that. Mhmm. We're acting as a

backstop on that. It seems as though, from my perspective, when you're asking people to gatekeep themselves and yet they are being rewarded for not doing that and there's no external gatekeepers on them, it seems as though you've selected amount to Everest of a problem to solve. Or am I looking at it incorrectly? I think you're looking at it the way the platforms would love for you to look at it, but it wouldn't be the way I would

look at it Okay. If I was a person who wanted to, for instance, display the credibility of of my thinking for my business or something. And and so, I'll give you a good example of this. I was in, yeah, I'm pretty sure this is accurate. I think I was in Germany when, a yeah. Yeah. I was in Italy. I was in Italy. Same trip. Different different time

period. When Bridgewater, the largest hedge fund in the world, put out, an essay called, we're all mercantilists now, which we're recording this on 02/24/2025, and that was probably December 15. Pretty good job, Bridgewater. Right? Pretty good job. So so so you would think that that essay written by Ray Dalio's replacement, I can't imagine that that thing did not go viral. Right? They paid. They've sponsored it. I've seen that ad. They've paid to put that in

front of me. Facebook didn't give it to them that they've paid to put that in front of me. We're talking about it right now. How many tens of thousands of pieces of content have crossed both your life and mine since 12/15/2024, and we're talking about that content. And it's like, that wasn't up to the algorithm. That was somebody somebody wrote something amazing and useful and helpful, and then they paid to put it in front of them. And we're talking about it now because

it was useful and helpful and brilliant. And and I imagine they're gonna keep doing that, and their hedge fund will continue to grow and grow and grow. And they seem to be some of the wisest people in the space. And so and so and so if if you're the platform, you say, hey. What's the stuff that I've gotta do for the free stuff? Like, the free what's the free stuff that I have to do to keep the people who are gonna see a

lot of stuff on the platform. And then it's gonna be angry stuff, shallow stuff, stupid stuff. Right? It's gonna be all of that. And and so the platform will look at it and say, I want the shallowest, angriest, most unthoughtful stuff all of the time because it keeps other shallow, angry, unthoughtful people on the platform, and I can sell, you know, shoes to them or something. Right? Okay. And then there's the layer. It's like, you and I are on there. We're looking at pictures

of our friends' kids or something. Right? We're we're we're looking at each other's stuff probably. And and we go, this is a great essay. And the algorithm didn't give it to us. The the ad space gave it to us. And so and so we get that out of that experience, and they know how to target it to us. And so the question becomes, who are you aiming at, and then how do you get that material in front of the other in in front of that person?

And the difficulty we have in the marketing space is that everybody says, in order to market, you have to understand the algorithm. Bullshit. In order to market, you have to understand human comprehension. And so if we were to say somebody has to comprehend this about something that really matters to them, then the only question is how do we get that piece of information in front of that person. And it doesn't actually matter if there's only, let's just say, 10,000 people an hour who who who are

that person versus the millions of people on there. All you have to do is get that in front of the right 10,000. And so on LinkedIn, there are ways to do that. On Facebook, there are ways to do that. We do a lot of it in relationship building on LinkedIn around people that we really that's how you and I met, that on on people

that we really think are interesting and thoughtful people. And so and so and so I think if we start looking at it like, who is it that we need to speak to, and who is it that that this piece of content is going to be beneficial for, and how do I get this in front of them? That's an equation that makes sense to us, and it removes the question, what does the algorithm sponsor make easy, go viral? That all all of that doesn't matter. That's their problem, not

mine. My question is, how do I use that service to get the right information in front of you? And and if as long as I'm in control of that, I could give a I could give a shit what they do. Right? Let let let let them make pictures of banana goes go go viral. I don't care. Right? I I just want

my stuff in front of you so that we can have this relationship. And I think if we started looking at it that way, we'd we'd stop looking at it like, oh, I understand if I put this and that in there, I'm gonna go viral. And I'm like, why the fuck would you wanna go viral? Say thoughtful things and get it in front of thoughtful people, and your world gets really simple and and much more lucrative really quickly. So does that make sense,

or how do you hear that? Yeah. No. That that makes that makes a lot of sense. And I hear the core challenge in there of understanding human comprehension. So let's let's wander down that road a little bit. How do you understand how do we, how do I right? I I've written I'll use myself as an example. So just yeah. I've written three books. I'm getting ready to write a fourth one. I do this podcast. I do training and development, kind of

the same that you do. I work with clients. I'm consulting and and coaching in the leadership and in the organizational behavior space. You know, I'm I'm trying to give people and I try to push clients towards meat, not milk. You know, one of the greatest sort of compliments I've ever gotten from a client is that, you know, Hasan, you offer pragmatic solutions. Mhmm. Because things have to work.

Because that's really what people care about. People care about things working. Right? So this this essay that you were referring to, we're all mercantilists now. If that's going to make me invest better as a member of that hedge fund or as a part of that hedge fund or as a person who's giving advice from that hedge fund to the hedge fund I'm running, great. It's been pragmatic. It's it's worked. Right?

But the the rise of pragmatism, which I think, by the way, is is the only escape hatch you have from the algorithm, or at least it's the escape hatch I found. The rise of pragmatism as a countervailing force or a counterbalancing force does require not only an understanding, I think, of human comprehension, but an understanding of human attitude and behavior. And so how does how does how does comprehension and behavior link together if I'm if I'm

writing my fourth book? Right? Which I am, by the way. I'm writing my fourth book. So if you were advising me, in writing my fourth book, which is not a business book, it's a cultural commentary book, little bit of a polemic small book, you know, only a 50 pages. It's a book I feel compelled to write. That's why I'm writing it. I spent two years working on the ideas in it. Partially, the podcast

has influenced it. Other things are the conversations I have with people. And by the way, I write because I want to inflict my ideas on other people because I think they're worth inflicting on other people. And I think that my page should have them in a book form because I'm I'm obsessed with books. Right? I'm drunk on ideas as Richard Dawkins would

would say. Right? So how do I, as a person, writing a book, putting an idea out in the world that I thought deeply about, how do I understand the link between comprehension and behavior in order to get somebody, not not necessarily to pick up the book, but just to read my deep thoughts. Mhmm. So, I just wanna make sure I understand the question. Sure. I understand the comprehension

part. Yeah. And I think you're you're asking, what what if what if people don't have the right attitudes or behaviors to be open for the type of writing that you're discussing? And and, therefore, how do we how do we access Yeah. And I think that that's a huge problem for a lot of a lot of folks because in a fragmented communication milieu, where well, when we just saw this, you know, we're in 2025. Right? We just saw this with the last election. Right?

There are many, many people who don't know people who voted for the opposite candidate on their social media plat platforms. Right? Because the platform does the thing that the platform does, which I loved your description of that. But in real life, they don't know. Forget the platforms. In real life, which is another area we can talk about, they don't know anybody because we're self

selecting. Right? Mhmm. COVID really sort of, accelerated this process, you know, as people literally physically got up and moved around the country. Right? Because they could. Right? It was a it was a unique opportunity to be able to do that. I'm gonna I know because I was one of those people. People self selected into into or out of groups. Right? Behavior groups that they wanted to be a part of. But when you do that, the group of people you're targeting with your ideas, if you're

a business, does not expand. It becomes smaller. So how do we link, like I said, how do we link behavior and comprehension together? How do we how do we do that? Mhmm. I think I think the if the the the best answer I could give you is we accept that we can't, but but we can invite people to our own comprehension. And so, if you don't mind a slightly longer answer to the two question, this is a very common thing that I do in my workshops. But Mhmm. You'll

see, this coffee cup here. If anybody's on YouTube, you can see this. And it says, this is not a coffee cup on it. And and what that means is is that we don't think of it, but but we we learned language as an act of manipulation. So a a a teacher held up a pen in a fourth grade classroom and said, this is a pen. And what is this? And the class went, it's a pen. What is it? It's a pen. What is it? It's a pen. And went, okay. Great. You can identify in this in the world. You

have power. And to be very clear, in in love and adoration to all fourth grade teachers, they needed to do that because the kids have to function in the world. That's your vegetables. You have to eat them. Right? Like like, kids have to function. But we never actually fix that underlying assumption, which is which is that identification is power, and I can't think of anything less

actually accurate than that. So so if we take the coffee cup that that we we don't we don't say, you know, if if I tell you that, that that this is a coffee cup, that this is an act of manipulation. Right? If you're at my house and I say, is it alright with you if I put my your coffee in

this coffee cup? We don't say that's an act of manipulation. We we don't we don't say, I'm commanding you to see this as a coffee cup because I have learned it to be a coffee cup, and I demand that you see this as a coffee cup because it's a coffee cup and you probably do. But there's a reason that this is effective to hold coffee. It's ceramic. It's got a handle. It's got a decent size to it. The ceramic structure is different than metal or glass, which would burn my hand if I put

something warm in it. And so I could say, while you're at my house, do you mind if I put this in this cup that is ceramic and it's got a handle on it and it's got looser molecules in it than, say, metal or glass, it won't burn your hand. And for the duration of this conversation, is it alright with you? If if I if I call this a coffee cup and put it in there and you say, that was completely useless, I call that a coffee cup too. That's ridiculous.

Of course, you can do that. But what I've really done is invited you into my frame of the world. I haven't commanded you to take my own. And that's a very different thing than this is a coffee cup. Right? Like, that's a very different thing. This is my understanding of the structure of this thing, and I think it's gonna be useful for you. And do you mind if I put your coffee in it? Is a very different thing than this is a coffee cup. And no one

says this matters. No one says we need to do this. This is just semantic philosophical bullshit Until someone says democrats are assholes, and you go, where the hell did you get that from? That's really mean. That's, like, you're saying, jerk. Like, where did that come from? And it's like, wait a minute. If I can command you to see reality as I do with this, then I've learned that my view of reality is real, and it's not.

It's a lie. It's bullshit. And so what I have to do is say, my understanding is that this functions in a way that is useful to hold coffee. And if it's alright with you, I'd like to put your coffee in it because I think that's what's best for you. And you'll say, I agree with that. And I'll say, I have concerns

about how the Democratic Party is messaging. And I think some of that messaging and and so what I'm doing is sharing my frame for information, and then you volunteer whether or not that frame for information is an accurate place to make the decision. Yes. Put coffee there. Yes. I think that's where Democratic party party messaging needs to go, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

So all I can do is is command my own frame of understanding, and I can invite you to my frame of understanding, and you have every right to say, that guy's an asshole. I'm not gonna take that frame. You have every right, and I can't and I can't demand that you do. I can only say,

these are the things that I'm noticing in the world. This is this is why I think things are working this way, and these are my suggestions because of this understanding that that I think the world will be better if if if because of these understandings. And so how do you hear that? And then you get a choice, and and I have to give you that choice. I cannot command it of you. I have to give you that choice. And so are certain people going to be more open to your frame than other people? Yes.

And the people who aren't, fuck them. It's not it's not for them, and that's okay. Right. Move on. Right? And and and so and so you're not gonna and and and that's a powerful thing. Right? Because I because I think I think a lot of times people go, like, well, you know, my my my neighbor down the street would would never would would never like, that person, I've really just gotta say, this is the world and you better

take it. And it's like, how many people are you not speaking to in order to speak that way to the most unthoughtful person on your street? And and and how many people how many people are you are you losing and and not inviting into the thoughtful observations of the world that that you have? And so I think we go through this. I think we go through it every day. We just don't discuss it. And not for nothing. You and I both have an academic background. Schools are the basis of

this, that we we are terrible. Like, this conversation does not happen in freshman English, and it should. It's it's the core of what of what freshman English should be. But but it doesn't happen in freshman English, and they say, well, you have an opinion. Write your opinion. Find 15 sources that roughly put it in MLA, and, we'll give you an a. And and then and then we never fix this misunderstanding that I can command someone to see reality versus I can invite

someone to see my own, and that's a huge change in the world. But does that make sense, or how do you hear that? Oh, yeah. I mean, that makes it makes sense. I don't necessarily agree with all parts of it, but I understand how you got to the end of the road with the with the cul de sac. Absolutely makes sense how you got there. And I would say that you are talking about well, first off, you're right. It's not a coffee cup. It is a collection of atoms that

just holds another collection of atoms. Oh, really? Just as Now we're closer. Well, you know yeah. Well, I was so in in first year art history class, we look at, you know, the Magritte painting that your cup comes from. You know? We look at the treachery of images, and we seek to understand. And I know this because I was a bachelor of fine arts major as an undergraduate in college. And so we understand how yes. We understand how we understand how and why

even philosophers like Plato had a problem with the artists. Mhmm. Because that manipulation in a sophistic way can be used, yes, for understanding and for breaking frames and for joining people together, but it can also be used for creating frames and and blocking people off and creating, creating, what do you call it? Fake what I call fake conflict, pretend conflict around things that don't really matter. This is what this is all what Plato

was yelling about with the sophists. This is why he was yelling at those guys all the time. And sophistry has been raised to a high art and then given a platform and an algorithm, these days. The other thing that I think is that if we're inviting people into our thinking, right, We are social animals. Right? So, you know, we wanna invite as many people into our tribe as we possibly can. We know from Dunbar's number that once we get to about a hundred, we're basically done. We can't

keep track of that many. We those that's the max limit on relationships. Right? And you even see this on those algorithmic platforms. You know? I'm only interacting with five or six people because that's all that's all all the things that I can, like, handle and I can't. You know? And if somebody pops out with something or whatever and by the way, just use my own example, post election, in The United States, one of the things that I've done is I've taken to snoozing people,

because just you you gotta be snoozed for thirty days. Like, you need to go to sleep. Like, my wife's just like, just get off Facebook period. Like, no. Just just just you go to sleep. And and, you know, I snooze and then I delete. Right? Because I wanna give people an opportunity to still, you to your point, think their thoughts and and bring those thoughts into my frame, because two things can be true at the same time. I don't wanna be assaulted

inside of my frame by your thinking. I don't wanna be and I think you're getting to this as well. This is when I'm hearing the core idea. I don't wanna be assaulted into compliance. Right. I don't wanna be forced to comply with your thinking. I want to be invited for sure. But if you invite me and then I've taken the invitation and I've said, no. I don't want it. I want to leave. I should be allowed to leave. This isn't Facebook post is not a suicide pact.

A marketing post on LinkedIn is not a suicide pact with a brand. Like, I don't have to ride or die with you. You invited me in. I looked around. I saw what was going on. It's not for me. Mhmm. I think people, because they are seeking for connection, you use the term connection several times in relationship because that's the the larger thing that we're going to. I think people are seeking the connection and relationship that comes from purposeful communication,

but they don't know how to ask for it. They don't know how to ask for that purposeful connection. And I don't know if that starts in the family. You you talk about being in the fourth grade, you know, holding up a pen. I think it starts way earlier than that. I think it starts when you're two one and two years old in your house. It's way earlier than that. I think the the educational system, and both my wife and I are

educators. The educational system comes along way after a lot of that's already hardwired in and then just doubles down and reinforces, you know, all the way through twelfth grade or, you know, if you're so blessed, college. You know? And it is all about compliance. We will get you to comply. The question, I guess, is who does that work for, which gets us into some very Marxist territory. You know, does it work for the capitalist? Does it work for the people in

power? Who has the power? And I don't wanna go down that. I don't wanna go down that road. That's a that's a different kind of road than what I wanna go down. I want to focus on the writing piece of this because I think you've hit on something, and the decline in writing among the k through 12 cohort is something I think we have to we have to talk about. And so who do who does it benefit if kids can't write and if kids can't comprehend? What kind of adults do they become?

Mhmm. Yeah. This is this is interesting, and and we may or may not have have the same point of view on this. I I know that that there's there's a, maybe a theory out there that that the education system has conspired, to make kids ineffectual and and soldier on for the for the powers that be. And I could see that argument. Like like, certainly, there's a there's a there's a frame of understanding there that that is credible enough to consider at any rate, that that that it's not it's not it's

not outright dismissible. But I I've done enough work in government and and other places. I love I think I heard this on a Sunday show at one point. This is, you know, the thing about conspiracy theories is is that you're making the assumption that the government is, wise enough, smart enough, and, committed enough to

actually pull through on any of these things. It's not any of them. And I know that that is more roughly my experience of the and so but but and so and so and so I don't think it's the answer you might be leaning for, but I'll answer your question. Go ahead and give no. Give me give me the give me the answer that is the answer. I'm I'll work with

my own leaning for that. I don't know. But but but if someone were asking me that question, I would say the person that it benefits is the school teacher and the professor and the person who does not have to take on the obligation of what it takes to be successful in life. Oh. And and so and so by by being a person this is this is absolutely true. Like, I'll I'll just share this with you. Last week, I shared with my students, freshmen. I do not teach at

a predominantly white institution. I did a lot of first generation college kids, lots of and so and so we and and so I went through, and I was and it's like, I don't care if you get wealthy in this country. Like like like, that's up to you. I very much care that you know how. Like, I want you to know how to do it. And and it's important to me that you understand the difference between working for someone and having your own business and understand that is a

choice. And it's very it's under like, let's talk about investing money, and and and that is a choice. Like, there are all of these choices that are available to you, and it's and it's like, well, why are we having that discussion in an English in an English classroom? Because it isn't happening anywhere else. It isn't happening anywhere else.

Yeah. And and so and and so and so the people who have it, and I don't think this is a conspiracy, I think this is just life, are the peoples whose parents had

it. And and their parents had it, and their parents and so and and so and so someone's childhood so someone's educational outcome is essentially predetermined by the family that they're brought into and the quality of conversations at their dinner table, and school tries not to get in the way and to help the rest of the people more or less the best

they can. And what that does is alleviate the responsibility of the teachers of actually understanding the world very deeply and being able to explain the world in a very deep way as a matter of character, as a matter as a matter of finance, as a matter of economy, as a matter of geopolitics, as a matter

of everything. It's it it alleviates that responsibility. And so I think the person who benefits from kids not knowing that is the person who doesn't have to take on the responsibility of, I have to now go investigate the world really, really well. And and listen, let's face it. If you make $65,000 a year, maybe we're not paying or finding the right people to do that. Like like, if someone were to say, Brian, fix the world in in a generation or less, I'd say everybody who might

go into law Mhmm. Pay them enough to go into teaching. Bring bring all of the smartest educated people in the world, pay them all a hundred and $50 a year to go teach and and and get that thinking, that wide, broad, thoughtful, amazing geopolitical, economic, etcetera, thinking into the classroom and do it from k to k to the time they graduate, but but we don't have those teachers there. And so so to me, the system is built not by conspiracy, but just by default to to to make

it easy to pass kids through. And the net effect of that is they're not they're they're not good in the world, but the only person who really benefits there are the professors. I wouldn't say it's necessarily the rich people or whatever. I think it's probably the professors that get more benefit than that. But how do you hear that? So it's interesting that you bring this up because I I don't, again, I don't fully agree with you,

and these two things can be true at once. And I have seen in my experience when I was working as an adjunct, at a business school and making significantly less than $65,000 a year. Let's be real. I understand. Okay. I would have made more babysitting. And and some days, that's what I feel like they expected me to do. Because of the nature of how I'm wired, and, yes, this does go to upbringing and all of that, I categorically refuse to

play that play that game. Right? And, intentionally, this is a word I use with leadership, and this is a word I use in organizational behavior. We have to lead with our brains on. We have to if we're talking about teaching, we have to teach with our brains on. We have to write with our brains on. Right? Intentionality for me is huge. Right? Are you doing things on purpose, or are you just reactively responding by accident?

Okay. When I was, you know, that adjunct, I would always do a lecture in my business class, and it would come usually spring semester. Actually, probably right about now. And it was a lecture about globalism because very few students in business schools who are going to go work 60% of them are gonna go work for some multinational corporation that is not fully to care about them and is gonna burn them out in

four years. Mhmm. And then they're gonna be clamoring around trying to find a smaller place or whatever They don't understand why it's cheaper for a hedge fund, going back to a hedge fund for just a minute, to send them to Malaysia to live out of a laptop than it is for head and and look at an Excel spreadsheet and fire a bunch of people that they never met than it is for a hedge fund to keep them at home in a neighborhood

actually engaging with people that they may be firing at a local plant. It's cheaper to send them to Malaysia because of globalism. But business school students do not understand this. They don't to your point about it not being explained, at no point in high school, and I thought I taught probably a thousand students in the course of five years, right, that I was an adjunct. I can't remember one student coming up to me and saying, oh, yeah. This was all explored

in, like, high school. The vast majority of folks came up to me and said, I never actually heard that explained. And by the way, I started globalism off with Bretton Woods and what happened after World War two, and then just a cascade of, you know, down in Nixon and everything else. Right? Okay. And I draw the line for them. And I say, if you want to make this decision, this is the system you're engaging in. I don't care if you engage in the system. I am agnostic on your life decisions.

That's right. And and I I don't care. But I don't want you to be able to say that no one ever told you Yes. That this was the thing that was going to happen. And so Yes. I have seen what you're talking about when as an instructor, as a teacher, I chose to, regardless of what I was getting paid, go to the system with a different idea. That was an active choice.

And because I'm psychologically wired to be high in personal agency and I'm I have a a high internal locus of control rather than an external one, I'm not really too concerned about whether or not the system likes me. That doesn't

really Right. Like, concern me. Right? Right. What concerns me is, are the people who are going into any system, are they adequately prepared to operate and know what the rules are because no one is explaining it to them as a failure of leadership, which is the point of actually this podcast as well. K. And the failures of leadership are all over the place. You know? And so I think those thoughts at the same time, I also think of this as where I maybe disagree

with you a little bit. I don't think it's a conspiracy so much as it is the inertia of things moving beneficially forward. Right? And by the way, benefiting to your point, maybe teachers or or principals or k through 12 administrators. Sure. Okay. I always ask the question, at what point does the benefit run out? Which I think the benefit is starting to run out now. My father always used to tell me you're gonna pay the piper one way or another, and the the bill always

comes due. I agree. You know? I agree. And so I think we're paying the piper now. Yeah. And I think we're going to be paying the piper in the future, particularly as we outsource more and more of our cognition to these large language models and these more of the algorithmic in publication, to paraphrase from Cory Doctor, Doctorow, an AI slop that's just gonna be laying around the Internet. Yep. And it'll

be our own fault. We will have done it to ourselves, but, of course, we will search for a leader who we can blame or who will save us, and we will never have realized that that saving piece was in our own hands the whole time. So I have a bunch of a bunch of different thoughts in my head. I'm gonna have to go through this a little bit. I'm gonna have to cascade this and think about this a little bit because

it's not necessarily agree on that, by the way. I I don't I I I'll I'll take I'll take inertia as as, as as the as the process of of false or or or umbrellaed, or umbrellaed conspiracy. I I would take that word. I think I think that's an accurate ish. Well and I'm not willing to go full Marxist. I think Marxists don't. The the Marxist left and the anarchist right both share something in common. They're both looking for boogeyman under the bed. Yes. When in reality More than that. But yes.

When when in reality, the boogeyman is themselves the whole time. And they're both, by the way, underneath the same bed. They're both hiding out in the same bed looking for each other. Isn't that funny? So It it's oh, it's hilarious. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Let's turn the corner a little bit because

we've talked about frames. We've talked about comprehension and a little bit about commission and the purpose of sharing thoughts, the education system, free stuff versus paid stuff, getting our language, making sure the the quality of our language is is high when we are expressing it, and that we are careful thinkers thinkers and speakers. For leaders, for people who have been positionally placed in charge and by the way, I'm not thinking about a leader of a major corporation. So I don't this

is not where I'm framing this this question. I'm thinking of a leader in a small company, employees maybe 500 people, maybe. Maybe his dad, or his granddad founded that company. Mhmm. And he grew up in it, and and he just always assumed that he was gonna be the leader, and he got into the leadership position. And now we live in times like these where, he may not prioritize writing clearly. He may not prioritize writing at all. He may outsource it to somebody else.

Mhmm. What do you say? What advice do you have? What thought name and advice. What information, that's a better word, do you have for that individual, around agency, even around his own thoughts and putting them out there into, into the world? Yeah. So so so this is interesting. My my I'll I'll answer it in two ways just just because one's gonna make me laugh. That person, I never try

to convince them of anything. Right? If somebody says, I'm gonna let AI do all my writing, and, I don't need writing, and I've been writing since the fourth grade. I know what I do. I say, I wish you luck. Right. Right. Like, I actually don't try to convince that person of anything. But but but I think what you're hinting at at is is is what is it that that writing is inferring about leadership Mhmm. Or quality of

thinking or whatever that we don't say out loud. And and and and so taking that frame, here's here's the here here's my understanding of it. The the first thing is we David Eagleman writes about this in his neuroscience book, which I which I absolutely love. I don't know if you've you've discussed his books here on your podcast or not, but but, he's got a couple which are which are great, but incognito is the kind of the one that that gets the most press, and it's worth

it. He talks about the human being is not a successful animal because we are more cognitive than other than other animals because we think better. That that's a mistake. That the human being is not a successful animal because we have fewer instincts and more cognition, which is the story we tell ourselves. The human being is a successful animal because we have more instincts and better instincts honed by our cognition, which is which is a fundamentally different

thing. And so and so now we'll start with that when it comes to writing. So for instance, somebody says, we we do this on on Thursdays. If any one of your people wanna join us at at some point, they're welcome to. Where we look at an essay from The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times or something. And we simply say, do we trust this author as being credible? Would we make decisions based on the information that's and the answer is almost always

no in part because I try to find the worst essay that day. But Of course. But Put my thumb on the scale a little bit there. Exactly. But but but but but it when we listen to, like, when we listen to those conversations on Thursday, what generally speaking is somebody raise some somebody says something in the first ten words.

And I'm gonna pair it. I'm gonna I'm I'm just gonna make one up. But but to give people an an example, it might say something like the Trump administration is obviously incorrect on policy x. Right? And and so and and so even there are people in that room who would politically agree with that statement, but they would still say that undercuts the writer's credibility. And that's a feeling. It's a feeling. We go, oh, why like, why am I having that feeling toward that

frame of information? Why am I having that feeling? And so and so what I would say to the person who's interested to how writing what language is gonna do is say, I've had an instinct, and the instinct is this is wrong. Mhmm. And now I wanna go through the process of saying, why am I having that instinct? Does does does that reflect the presentation of somebody's information? Mhmm. Does that reflect my own biases? Does that does that reflect

something that triggered me from when I was a kid? And and so and so that's coming up. Like, I have to now ask the question and be willing to answer the question, why am I having this instinct, this reaction, this feeling? And the minute I have that and so take your your average piece of, let's just say, email around, I don't know. You we gotta we're we're we're gonna come back to the office. We're no longer gonna work from home. Mhmm. And so and so a leader

now is forced to present that information. And this well, the easiest thing is just write an email that said Mhmm. Come back to the office. We're no longer gonna work from home, and then people are gonna get really angry. If you don't like it, quit. Right? That's Yep. So so so that's one way of handling it. Right? And and people go, man, the way this is presented has really concerned me. That says something. Right? And so and so then we say, well, why are people

having that instinct? Can we anticipate that instinct? And can we say, I suspect that that there are gonna be people who have difficulty with this, so I wanna be very transparent about why we're doing what we're doing. I wanna show you exactly our observations of the world and how we're making sense of those observations so that you can understand the decisions we've come in we've come to. And those observations are, and those decisions are, and the reasons are.

And people go, oh, okay. Now I see how you make that decision, not just the decision that you've made. Take the essay in the Wall Street Journal. Trump administration is obviously wrong. It's not necessarily incorrect. It's just inferred. Right? And as opposed to explained or explored, it's an abstraction that infers concrete information

versus details concrete information. And so if we own the difference between what concrete information are people going to agree on, this is a coffee cup, versus what concrete information do we need to state the inferences so they can agree on it or at least understand it. That's the benefit of writing well. Does that make sense? This is the continuing battle of the enlightenment. Right? I mean, this is the battle going all

the way back to the seventeenth century in the West. This is why our greatest fights, I've come to this conclusion in the last couple of years, are over who owns the dictionary and what words get to be in. That's where our greatest fights are. And it's not really about politics. It's about, the struggle in Western culture, and it is most notable in Western culture. The struggle in Western culture to ascend to the heights of reason without feelings. This is what all

the technologists promise us. Right? And, you know, look, I so I'm also an amateur historian because I think history matters a whole lot in these kinds of con a whole lot in these kinds of conversations, I think, actually, history probably matters more than which generational cohort you happen to be in, because the historical events that are surrounding you mold your thinking even if you are not aware of them,

because they molded your parents' thinking. And then your parents behaved a certain way, and there we go. That's the the the falling domino. Right? So I think the height of enlightenment reason was the atomic bomb, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was the height of enlightenment reasoning. And I think we've been pulling back in the West in horror from that over the last eighty years. And what you're talking about is a triumph of

at least what I'm hearing. And maybe I'm I'm incorrect. Correct me if I'm wrong. And I have not read Ekeland's book. I wrote it down. I'll go ahead and take a look at that. I read some neuroscience stuff. Okay. Sounds good. Yeah. Probably. Because There's some other things that happened to me in my life, relatives and my family and and whatnot. I had to figure out what's going on with them. But, but what I'm seeing over the last eighty years is that the triumph

of or the, I mean, not the triumph of. I think of it like Star Wars. Right? The Empire Strikes Back. It's it's feeling strike back. Right? And and if I'm incorrect in thinking about this or analyzing this this way, let me know. I I I think I think the continuing struggle will be the tension between feelings and reason, but this is the enlightenment

struggle. And the lie is that we can write our way out of it or we can reason our way out of it because writing feels, well, for lack of a better term, reasonable. But I even just said it there. It feels reasonable. There's no rationality or logic to that. Right? And so this this this tension, I don't think is going to be is gonna be going anywhere anytime soon.

And our technology, of course, serves to wind up that tension to a higher and higher level because it it benefits people, right, and benefits advertisers and whatever. Yeah. I oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. No. Go ahead. You're I I know at one point you wanted to bring up LLMs and and and this this this Yeah. I'm I'm wandering in that direction. Right? Yeah. This kind of this kind of loose there. But but, I I do not see feelings and reason as,

in a war. Mhmm. Okay. I so so if if this makes sense to you, there is no entity out there rationalizing for you and me. You rationalize for you and I rationalize for me. And and so and so and so I am going to be a experiential mix of the things that I have observed, how they have affected me, and and given me instincts for reaction, let's call that emotion, and my ability to reflect on that and try to make the most sense of it as possible before I create any behavior. So

so that that's of one piece to me. That's all one thing that I have experiences, and then they are mine to emote about, and they are mine to reflect on. On. And so I get to question why am I having that emotional response or why am I not having that emotional response. But but the mechanism of of of

rationality is is me. And and so so so so that so then we sort of go, well, does the world function where we have, whatever, 8,000,000,000 individual mechanisms of of comprehension and and not a rational reality, yes. Right? Like like, that's like like, that that or at least that is our experience of the world. I would concede that there is a reality,

but but I wouldn't concede that I know it. That but but I can I can have my own reflections on it and then make my own assumptions of, and and be curious about it and try to and try to understand that reality as much as possible and then align my life to the way where I think that that that I can have the most productive and meaningful life inside of that reality? But the sense maker there is me. It's not my church. It's not my university. It's not the sense

maker there. It's me. And and so to me, they're not really divorced from each other. They're of the same piece because they're internal to us, and they inform each other. But we may see that differently. Yeah. We do. I'm gonna sidestep that because that's that we would unwind into, like, a four hour conversation. I don't think we have that kind of time. And I would I would love to challenge the the lack of a god inside of the machine. Let's let's frame it that way.

Idea that's inherent in that, but not right now. Maybe we'll have you on. Yeah. I mean, that that would be another section. That'd be that's a different kind of conversation. Yeah. But the but I and I and I will say this. I I am of the thought that we can actually know reality, but, here's the but, it's hard and it requires effort from us Yeah. Which we filter that effort through our experiences and through our feelings and through our reason. But the effort is the thing that matters.

This is why, the term Israel means we who wrestle with or struggle with god. Right? And I think that that is an appropriate motto for our time. I tend to I tend to I'm just I'll just sort of partially lay my cards out. I tend to not think that Nietzsche was that brilliant. He got a couple of things correct, but he was just calling the end of the Kantian enlightenment project,

and saying that it had reached its logical conclusion. But a lot of people, a lot of philosophers in particular and also writers, have leveraged his thoughts, I think, incorrectly, throughout the twentieth century and and and caused a lot of damage, actually. Mhmm. So and and I think that there's some talk about the neuroscience. I think there's some neuroscience and some research that shows that, yeah, maybe we might we might have missed the mark a little bit on that.

So Mhmm. But, again, that's that's way beyond that's way beyond where we are. Listen. I don't think that's that that's controversial. I don't think you should be worried. I I'm like, hey. Say it. Like like, I you know? Like No. No. It's not the controversy. Oh, I'm not worried about the controversy piece. It's the it's I wanna be cognizant of your time. It's the only

thing that we yeah. Let let us all live in a world where a hundred years from now, people are looking back on these talks, and they go, you know, they got some things right about the world, but not everything. I'm not gonna be a person. I'll sign up for that, man. There you go. That's right. Okay. So we've talked about well, okay. So this leads into one of the things that sort of I'm obsessed with on this show. Okay? I'm obsessed with with the transference of wisdom.

How do we get wisdom from one generation to another? The best vehicles we've had for that have been stories. Stories, the oral narrative. There's an essayist named Walter Benjamin, who wrote an essay called The Storyteller. It was on the writings his critique of the writings of, Nikolai Leskoff, back in the nineteen thirties. And we actually covered that on the podcast.

You should go listen to that episode. And his critique, right, of the technology of the novel was that it killed the ability to transfer wisdom. Instead, it took wisdom that was in an oral narrative and turned it into mere information. Mhmm. Okay. And and he was approaching it from a Marxian dialectic as well. So there's there's some other things underneath there. But also you're going? Yeah.

Yeah. But also a Judaic mystic frame and a German German Prussian sort of framing as he was writing in the nineteen thirties, you know, in Germany, and and trying to figure out what was going on in the Intergerum, you know, in that in that country. Right? Why wasn't why wasn't the wisdom of avoiding authoritarianism filtering down into people? Why were they going in the particular direction that they were going? And I think that's a relevant question for our time as well.

So how does writing help us transfer wisdom? Does it, or do we need the oral narrative? Is it better to just do that through conversation? I think I think writing is, generally speaking, more effective than oral, But but the type of oral tradition you're referring to is is a a type of oral tradition that functions as a piece of writing. Okay. And and so and and so to me. And and so if we think of writing, this is and this is not all writing to our to our Mhmm. Social media conversation earlier.

Yeah. But if we think of writing as the written expression of a thought that has been, reflected upon enough to be worthy of someone else's time, then writing is certainly a very useful mechanism of sharing wisdom if if that's if that's the definition of it. And I think, you know, that's really what what traditional oral history is is is is is that. Right? It is a it it is the process of language applied to a reflection that that, informs the listener of

the world. And so, I think Benjamin is is onto something about do all novels do that? No. Do even most novels do that? Probably not. The and then if you wanna get controversial, did novels in 1995 do that better than novels in 2015? Yes. That that that I I would say the same difficulties we

have on social media, name your publishing house. They've had those difficulties too that how, you know, the the the the loudest people, not necessarily the most thoughtful, not necessarily the most reflective, the ones who make the most noise out there with the biggest platforms are the ones who are getting the book deals. And and it's like, well, what is that doing to the, wisdom of the of the, of

of the culture? You know, it's not particularly adding to it. So so but but but do I think that writing as as the if we look at it as in in the same way we would in a in a strong oral tradition, is is the is the verbalization or the written verbalization of of a reflection that is worthy of consideration of someone else? And does writing function that way? And can it function that way and create wisdom for other people to grow and make decisions and add their own

understandings of it to that? I do think writing is highly effective and probably the most effective tool we have for that still. Yeah. I mean, I agree with Benjamin about the novel, disintermediating, which is a word he did not know. The and the printing press, actually, is where he really goes back to it, disintermediating the oral narrative. And yet, there are books that seem to resist the disintermediation of the printing press, or they went along with it.

Stories that were then translated and became parts of or transliterated, not translated, transliterated into other forms in novels, movies, film, of course, in the West. And, of course, in these books, I'm I'm in front of, like, in this thought. Those books also seem to defy the algorithm. I mean, if I am and the example that I'll use is Homer. Like, Christopher Nolan, who just directed Oppenheimer, is directing The Odyssey. Mhmm. Make of that whatever you will. Okay? And I'm I'm

gonna be here. Lots of cool things happen. I'm a I'm a huge fan of Christopher Nolan as a director. I've I've I've I've here's here's what I was and Nolan, I trust, and I just leave it at that. There you go. Okay. You know? He's he's made a few duds. Don't get me wrong. Interstellar was not great. Chris, we should have a conversation about that. That movie was trash, and tenant tenant was self referential garbage. Stop it, sir. But Yes. The vast majority of the rest of it has

been has been has been excellent. I guess. A plus stuff. But this is a person who, again, understands how storytelling applies to that medium, how ancient stories, again, Homer, apply to that medium, how they, again, they defy the algorithm. And I think our most ancient stories that come out of an oral tradition, like the Bible, like Greek mythology, are gonna just continue on regardless of what the technology is that seeks to disintermediate them.

And that gets us to our last go around here. It gets us to the LLMs. Mhmm. So as a person who writes, I'm not worried. Weirdly enough, I'm not worried about large language models. I'm really not. A, because I personally, as an individual, can outthink them no matter what they spew out. Right? I can find the gaps and all of that. Number two, I don't anthropomorphize them. I don't call them intelligence because they're not, and I refuse to play that, word game with them. But then I also and this

is the third thing. Just like any technology, I am expecting it to expose human failures, but also to create human successes. Right? And so I don't buy into the hype of LLMs. I do see their usefulness in certain situations or for certain projects. But I think the challenge that they provide is one of, and it's kind of one we're we've kind of been lazy at, at least in America over the last twenty years, curation and aggregation.

And the people who figure out how to use these models and then curated aggregate the best of these models are going to be fine. Other people are just gonna continue to use Microsoft Copilot to write a crappy email that they don't wanna send so they could twirl around at their desk and eat a Snickers bar. And that's fine. That's that's fine. I mean, I guess. Thoughts on LLMs? Thoughts on anything. I believe

that was a commercial, by the way. I was trying to say I believe that was a commercial during the Super Bowl that I might have missed or might have heard about later on. Thoughts on thoughts on on the the the hype around LLMs versus the reality of of human cognition? I I think I couldn't agree with you more. I I I think it's it's a but, like, so so let's let's give LLMs their their their due Their due. Yeah. At first. And and so, are there tens of thousands of photos of rare cancers

on the Internet? Probably. Yeah. Could someone, in the foreseeable future or now, take a photo of a spot on their arm, which the doctor said it's probably nothing, And the artificial intelligence engine could say there's a eighty two percent chance that it's one of these rare cancers. Possible. And it might take the doctor six weeks to test and whatever. And now that process is accelerated by this person going and saying, I'd like to be tested for these cancers, and

this is why. And I guess this part of the mole looking this way is roughly approximating this rare cancer, and I'd like to look for it. And now you've you've accelerated the process six weeks. So Mhmm. So do I think that that is a foreseeable and a useful and an amazing achievement? I do, and we should use it, and God bless humanity. And then the question becomes, is it actually

intelligent? Because that isn't actually intelligence. That is that is something closer to a massively high functioning database. Mhmm. And and but it doesn't actually require new information. And the minute the minute we go, well, what's the what what's the what what is the next level of understanding that humans do not have about something? Mhmm. Can we ask the the computers to do it? There's two difficulties I have with that just as a

matter of structure. One is, to our point earlier, we falsely think humans are are intelligent because we have data. It's not true. Humans are intelligent because we have instincts based on reflections of data. And so and so that begs the question, what instincts does this have? None. Mhmm. And what reflective ability does it have? None. So it's highly limited in its ability to create actual intelligence, and

you and I are not. Right? It's actually a fairly it's a fairly simple process, right, that that, you know, if my wife were to come in here right now and start yelling at me, we we would we would say, oh, jeez. Brian looks upset. And then and then we'd be able to determine within a couple of minutes, probably, why she's upset. Yeah. And and it would be really hard for an LLM to do that. Right? Like like, you could feed it my whole life, and it and it probably couldn't do that. But you and

I could do it in about forty seconds. And so and so and so and so it's very like, it's it and and so and so we make the assumption that data is equal to assessment of data and reflection on data, and they're not the same thing. And and and it's not codable. And and and it then begs the question, does it that it who who is the thinker? Not not what is the not what is the data to be thought about, but who is the thinker.

And and and do these things actually have enough personality and, therefore, the instincts, etcetera, to be thinking? And my sense is we're very far from from from that right right now, and I don't know that we will ever get there. And I'll and I'll share with you this. I I was gonna ask this question. This I was at the Wall Street Journal Future of Everything conference, and I went to the the guy who

runs DeepMind, went to his thing. Yeah. And so I'm sure this is gonna end up on the Internet, and go ahead and feel free to clip this and make me look like an asshole. But I was gonna ask him this question. And number one, he didn't take any questions. The guy who ran DeepMind was was was number one, he didn't ask any questions. Oh, no. It was it was Google's sorry. I should say this right because because the DeepMind guy was there as well. It was Google's, like, like, head

of, like, moonshot projects or something. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mhmm. And and and I was gonna ask this question, but his presentation was so pedestrian. It was so simple. It was so, hey. Human beings have been replaced by technology for forever, and I know you're upset about it. But, like, it was so I was like, I can't ask. I'm not sure he could answer it. Like like like, if if this is the guy doing moonshots, we're nowhere like,

they're driving. They're not this is not even the right highway. They're they're they're going the wrong direction. Like like, this person can't comprehend that question. Right. That right? And and so and and so, like, I was like, this is so frustrating. Like like because because these are interesting things if they actually bring it up, but but that was awful. Right? It was like talk about the the the quality of somebody's, reflections on on the

experiences they've had. I'm like, if that's the quality of reflection based on the experiences of the people who run Google moonshots, sell your stock. Right? Like like, that that ain't gonna go well for people. And so and and so my sense is that that we have this promise of the thing. We think data and processing power is the way to get through the promise of this thing, and we're missing the question, who is the thinker and how is the thinker creating the instincts of the instincts of of

creation? And I don't think we're anywhere near there, and I don't think Yeah. I don't think we're it's it's just not a threat to writers. No. No. I I agree. I think human beings can do everything an LLM can't do. Right? Which is a lot of things. And these two things can be true at the same time. LLMs can do a lot of things that human beings don't want to do when they are employed to do those things that human beings don't wanna do. And the sad tragedy is the things that human beings don't

wanna do. Say, for instance, I've got to I do my laundry because I live in a house with other people, so I get to do my laundry once a month. That's the only time that I can get in. Yes. I do have enough clean clothes. Thank you for asking. I make sure I do everything once a month, and then I just dominate. And then I'm done, and I irritate everybody, and it's fine. I don't want an LLM to send my email to somebody. That's not a problem. I want the LLM to do my laundry. Yes. Yes.

To paraphrase Peter Thiel, you know, I don't wanna I don't wanna be promised moonshots and get emails. And don't don't don't overpromise and then and then specifically don't don't under deliver. Yeah. Yeah. Alright, Brian. I think we've reached the end of our time together. This has been a fascinating conversation. We've opened up doors in the floor, in the floor of my head. Hopefully, I've opened up some doors in the floor of

your head. Appreciate it. Hopefully, this has been a this has been a an an enlightening and engaging conversation for our our listeners as well, something to think about. We haven't really come to any conclusions, and I think that's good, because these are all still open questions. What would you like to promote today, if anything? I'll give you the last word here. Well, first of all, if anybody's interested in learning more about us,

think deeply, write clearly Com. There's a little button on there for a fifteen minute call if anybody's interested in in in chatting. In a in a very nonspecific way, the things that a lot of people find interesting to to start with my company if if this conversation is is is of interest to you and how to write from more deeply and observed, way in the world is is of interest to you. We have a a program that's $99 per quarter, and it's about ten

minutes a week. People tend to love that, and I'd be happy to give anybody, you know, a couple of months free into that and see if they like it. So just email me or or, you know, hook up on that somehow on that site, and I'd be happy to chat with you. Great. We will have links to Brian Morgan's site

at think deeply, write clearly. I would encourage you to check that out and to click on all those links and get in contact with Brian Morgan and, of course, follow him around in all the places on social media where you may be able to follow him, follow him around and, and make sure to connect with him widely and clearly. Alright. I'd like to thank Brian Morgan for coming on leadership lessons from the Great Books podcast today. And with that, well, we're out. Thank you, Fred.