 It's no secret that there are a lot of bad ideas that spread, which make most of us rational thinkers wonder what's going on. It's 2020 and there are entire conventions of people who believe the world is flat and that make TikTok videos like this. You ready? You got it? Yep. So, take this ball here, pour a whole bunch of water on it and watch none of the water fall off the bottom. It all sticks onto it. And while that's happening, that's happening and the water stays stuck. Not only that, you're at 1,000 miles an hour spinning this way, which also at 67,000 miles an hour, 67,000 miles an hour while spinning 1,000, you're circling around the sun. And while that's happening, you're also chasing the sun through the Milky Way at 514,000 miles an hour. And every single night, the stars are exactly the same. Every single night. Every single night. The stars never change. Polaris is always exactly where it is. Meanwhile, QAnon is being banned from most social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. And it seems like YouTube may follow suit soon. As you may remember, last month I had a video debunking QAnon COVID conspiracies wrongly taken down by YouTube. Fortunately, it was put back up because I was explaining how absurd it is for QAnon to tell people not to wear masks during a pandemic. I often sit back and wonder how so many people can share so many bad ideas. So, when I heard that Gad Saad had a new book coming out titled The Parasitic Mind, How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense, I did what I usually do. I set a calendar reminder so I can get it on launch day and check it out. Prior to stumbling across his book, I knew nothing about Gad Saad. But after some research, I found that he's a professor in the field of evolutionary psychology since I loved Good Reasons for Bad Feelings by Randolph Nessie and Why Buddhism is True by Robert Wright, I figured this would be a great book to check out. I think it's important to make it abundantly clear that I had no prior knowledge of who Gad Saad was before getting this book because after reading his book, I'm sure his loyal followers will call me a quote unquote snowflake for pointing out the many flaws in his arguments. As we'll discuss later, while God and others accuse people of pandering and identity politics, it's blatant that they're doing the exact same thing for a niche group of followers. Aside from pandering, there's hypocrisy littered throughout the book. And I think it's important that we criticize weak arguments from those we hold up as intellectuals. Now, before moving forward with my criticisms, I do want to say that I agree with Gad Saad's overall thesis, which is that we should be able to have mature debates while using science and evidence to back our arguments. In his book, he brought up some interesting and solid points about biological differences and I thought his argument comparing criticisms of Islam and Christianity really interesting. Gad Saad definitely knows his stuff, but it's clear that it's only in specific fields of knowledge and that's not said to diminish him in any way. I believe that the sign of a true intellectual is having the humility to admit that you can't be an expert in all things. He's extremely well versed in biological differences and certain areas of psychology. The optimist in me wants to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just doesn't know about the solid research in certain areas of psychology. But I could see how someone could argue that he purposely neglects certain research because it doesn't fit his narrative or his brand. Finally, I think it's important to make clear for anyone who doesn't know me that I'm a 35 year old dropout nerd who just loves reading books about psychology, philosophy, politics, and other areas that teach me about human behavior. In his book I learned that Gad Saad often likes to bring people onto his YouTube channel to debate and while I'd be flattered, I'd be the wrong person to debate him. Gad Saad has an obvious pattern of behavior where he not only panders but he picks the lowest hanging fruits. It appears that he purposely argues with people less educated than himself on specific topics to not only win easy battles but he then uses fringe examples as antidotes to say this is how everyone thinks who disagrees with me. For example, in his book he explains going to dinner with one of his students to celebrate an occasion and the student brought someone he knew Gad would not agree with. Gad shares the story and the student he was debating was obviously a typical college student who thinks they're a lot smarter and profound than they actually are. But at best it's ignorant of Gad Saad to use it as an example of what the quote unquote left thinks and at worst he purposely uses these examples to appear as though his arguments are flawless. One of Saad's weakest areas of arguments comes in the realm of inequality and bias. Well yes, there are many people who see all of their disadvantages through the lens of identity. Saad acts as though these biases are some sort of pseudoscience. So in this first section we're going to discuss Gad Saad's views on inequality and bias and then we'll see what science has to say. But before we get started, if you're new to the rewired soul, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell. Here we use critical thinking and skepticism with a variety of different subjects to improve our overall well-being. And as always, if you want to check out any of the books I referenced in this video, my affiliate links for each book will be listed in the description down below. If I had to break it down into percentages, I'd say I agreed with about 45% of what Gad Saad had to say. Yes, it's less than half, but I don't disagree with too much of what was in this book. In fact, towards the beginning of the book, I thought it was going to be all bad, but he actually sold me on quite a few ideas that I hadn't considered. Unfortunately, unlike other chapters in the book, when he discussed racial and gender biases, he used zero scientific research. I want to make it clear that he used scientific research and evolutionary biology and some psychology to explain gender differences, but he basically denies that biases exist, which is completely absurd. As a recovering drug addict who had absolutely nothing eight years ago and worked extremely hard to get where I am today, I was a hardcore meritocrat for many years. Like Gad Saad, I believe that if you worked hard enough, you can achieve just about anything. But as I've educated myself more, I realized that hard work doesn't guarantee anything. Gad Saad's primary argument is that he's Lebanese and his family fled persecution when he was younger. Much like Candace Owens, Gad Saad believes that since he was able to rise up the ranks, that nobody else faces discrimination and that his experience trumps everyone else's. What people like Gad Saad fail to realize is something that I failed to realize for a long time, which is that we're the exception and far from the rule. When denying that racial, gender, and other forms of discrimination affect people, he doesn't cite a single study. I think it's important to point that out because for many of his other arguments, he uses research to back up his opinions but not here. Rather than making any valid arguments backed by science, he simply calls people snowflakes. After reading Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt's book, Bias, Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice that shapes what we see, think, and do, it's hard to deny the reality of implicit bias. Gad Saad argues that the IAAT, or Implicit Association Test, is some kind of wacky test that just calls everybody a racist. On the other hand, you have Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt, who has been studying racial biases for years and is a psychology professor at Stanford University. Dr. Eberhardt covers dozens of peer-reviewed studies that go beyond the IAAT, and she's hired by police departments around the country to teach them about biases. Like I said, Gad Saad loves picking fights by punching down, but I'd pay good money to see him debate someone like Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt. And if Dr. Eberhardt is unavailable, I'd gladly watch him debate the author of the book Blind Spot, Hidden Biasis of Good People from Dr. Mazarin Banaji. I absolutely agree with Gad Saad that some people are prone to outrage culture, and I've experienced it as someone who was canceled in 2019. When all of the protests and riots were breaking out on college campuses because they refused to let certain conservatives speak, I thought it was ridiculous. But it comes off as hypocritical when Gad Saad cherry picks which science he wants to believe. In my opinion, a much better book on this same subject is The Coddling of the American Mind, How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure by Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukanov. What separates these two books is while Gad Saad denies biases and prejudice, play any significant role in our society, the other authors are intellectually honest and explain that these are issues, but there are better ways to resolve them. In fact, Gad Saad may benefit from reading my favorite Jonathan Haidt book, The Righteous Mind, Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Haidt is a moral psychologist and he does an excellent job explaining how we're guided by emotions rather than rationality. He points to studies where something as simple as having hand sanitizer nearby makes people more conservative because they're subconsciously reminded of plensliness, a core value of conservatives. If something as seemingly meaningless as hand sanitizer can make someone more conservative, how can Gad Saad deny biases when we're so easily primed? I could go on and on about peer-reviewed science that make Gad Saad look silly in this regard, but I highly recommend he and his followers check out the book Predictably Irrational, The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions by the behavioral economist Dan Ariely as well as Thinking Fast and Slow by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman. But moving on, in this final section, I think it's important that we discuss how these quote-unquote intellectuals are often pandering hypocrites who are profiting off the polarization of the current political climate. I don't think Gad Saad is stupid. It'd be extremely ignorant of me to assume that he's not intelligent with all of his academic accomplishments and knowledge in various areas. Although he's not stupid, he, like others, is trying to profit off these divisive times. While Gad Saad will try to argue that he's a principled man who is only doing this because he believes in freedom of speech and the sharing of ideas, this is not the case. I'm a biracial straight man who looks white and I'm pretty progressive, but I do believe that there are some far-left people who have gone way off the rails. Years ago, I respected the opinions of people like Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, and Tim Pool. Like all of these examples, Gad Saad found a niche as being the anti-Snowflake advocate while becoming progressively worse. It's no longer about compelled speech. These men found an audience and decided to double down. Now, they've sacrificed their rationality for their brand. Do I think it's a jerk move to misgender a trans person? Absolutely. But do I think it should be against the law? Nope. Do I disagree with race-based genetic science in certain aspects like intelligence? Yes, but I also agree with Dr. Frederick DeBoer in his new book The Cult of Smart, How Our Broken Education System Perpetuates Social Injustice, that there are individual genetic differences we shouldn't deny. Personally, I agree with people like Gad Saad that it's silly that some people who mock climate change deniers also pick and choose which science they want to believe. As someone on the left, I know there are plenty of people on the left who disagree with science that offends them. But this is no longer the core of what people like Gad Saad are arguing against. Instead, they're pandering and their loyal followers don't see the hypocrisy. Throughout his book, he makes similar arguments as height in the coddling of the American mind that so-called social justice warriors catastrophize everything. There is a set of people who believe the world is going to come to an end if someone they disagree with ideologically comes into power. While height makes logical, evidence-based arguments against catastrophizing, Gad Saad calls them snowflakes and then proceeds to do the exact same thing. Within just a couple of chapters, Gad Saad equates progressives to 9-11 terrorists and then proceeds to call them catastrophizing snowflakes. His brand agenda has become so important to him that he neglects to see his own hypocrisy. Lastly, I think it's important to state that one of my favorite books is Science Fictions, how fraud, bias, negligence, and hype undermine the search for truth by Stuart Richie. There's a lot of bad science out there, and it's important that we know how to separate good from bad studies. Aside from shady tactics that researchers use, like p-hacking, Gad Saad is a prime example of using selection bias for his arguments. I'm sure if Gad Saad wanted to, he could refute a study or two that someone like Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt references, but Gad Saad uses selection and confirmation bias to only discuss research results that agree with him. Something I've come to respect from true intellectuals is their ability to try and refute their own points while making their argument, which is something Gad Saad does not do. So, is The Parasitic Mind a good book? Not really. To me, it's a clear cash grab to exploit anyone who has ever called someone a snowflake. Aside from just being a lazily written book, Gad Saad didn't say much that people in his circle haven't said a million times already. The target audience of books like this are people who want to go deeper into their echo chambers, and this is a weakness from influencers on both the left and the right. My final thoughts on Gad Saad as a person? He's a troll, and as someone who is a troll in my teen years and early twenties, I respect a good troll. Unfortunately, his brand is being an intellectual, but he merely punches down and debates non-experts. I don't think anyone should take him seriously until he debates experts in opposing fields. And for anyone who is leaving this video thinking that I'm just protecting the left, my next video is going to be about a book that I just finished that criticizes someone on the opposite side as Gad. Alright everybody, thank you for checking out this entire video essay, and sorry I've been gone for like a little bit, it's been like a week since I've uploaded, but anyways, I've just had a lot of stuff to do for my regular job and I've been hanging out with the kid and all sorts of stuff, but anyways, I have another video that is almost ready to go, so that'll be up soon, and I want to get out some videos for Halloween and spooky season and dive into some of the psychology and philosophy around some different topics and everything like that. I've been asking you guys on Instagram what movies or topics you'd like me to discuss, so I got some cool stuff planned as well as a bunch of other video ideas. But anyways, for those of you who aren't, make sure you follow me on social media. I've been posting weekly reading lists over on Medium, like last week I posted nine book reviews. I've been plowing through books this year. I'm at almost 200 books for the year, and I love reading them and I'm like, I need to start reviewing these, so I do that over on Medium if you want to check it out. I'll share the link over on my Twitter and my Instagram and stuff like that. Anyways, follow me over there, but anyways, I'm going to let you go. This video has been long. Thanks for watching, and if you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up, and if you're new, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell, and a huge thank you to everybody who supports the channel, whether it's over on Patreon or using my affiliate links in the description for all those awesome books I recommended that help support the channel. You're all amazing. Alright, thanks again for watching. I'll see you next time.