 Now the other major flaw, the other characteristic error that the 19th century produced in the idea of self-making, on the one hand was the Christian idea, what would be called something like the duty-based version of self-making. You have a duty to improve yourself, right? Even if you don't like it, even if it's not good, even if it isn't one of your values, you go do it, right? Andrew Carnegie even had this, right? In his so-called, he wrote a piece called The Gospel of Wealth. Andrew Carnegie said basically, wealth has no value except in as much as you can give it to other people, right? Except that you can endow libraries and schools and do things. Now he had a slightly more pro-self idea. He said, you've got to help those who can help themselves. He was opposed to just blanket charity, giving people money. He said, you give them the tools with which they can make themselves. But he still morally justified it as giving to others. Now the other error is what I would call the kind of subjectivist, the me generation, if you want to call it that. The idea of self-making, that's all just about the subjective whim, right? You don't like the world as it is. You don't like conditions as they are. So you just figure out a way to feel better about it, right? This is the opposite pole. This is self-making as a psychological indulgence, right? And this literature also becomes popular. In the early part of the 20th century, probably the three most popular self-help books, Norman Vincent Peel's Think and Grow, or no, he wrote, I wrote this down so I wouldn't forget. And I, yeah, the power of positive thinking, right, Norman Vincent Peel. And then Napoleon Hill wrote Think and Grow Rich, and then everybody's favorite, probably the most famous, Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, right? And what do these individuals, this is the post-Freudian world. So, you know, Sigmund Freud, the whole cycle analysis, that it's all a matter of how you think about yourself and repress all of your edible complexes, et cetera. And it's also doing in the sense that it's not really about the self, it's about how you reflect the self in society. And this is all really focused on the self. It doesn't make the same error that the Christian self-makers do of divorcing the self from the process of self-making. But it detaches self-making from any visible external goal, right? The idea of this self-making is entirely focused around some psychological characteristic. Now, of course, these self-help manuals still promise riches on the other end. Think and Grow Rich, right? Win Friends and Influence People, positive thinking. And they had enormous number of testimonials about, oh, I read the power of positive thinking and I beat Muhammad Ali. And there was a famous, famously, there was a boxer who claimed that reading this book was what allowed him to defeat Muhammad Ali. Now, I think probably his left hook or maybe a good jab was what allowed him to defeat. But it's all the psychological sense. Now, in some context, this psychological self-making can be a part of proper self-making. The problem is that it completely detaches itself from any real values in the world. Why should you make yourself? What should you make yourself into? Well, I don't know, whatever you want, right? If you want to make yourself into, you know, you do some kind of self-indulgent, you know, pop some drugs, sit on a hill and figure out who you are, that's just as much self-making as, say, coming up with a great idea, succeeding in the world and accomplishing something for yourself, pursuing real values, you know, health, wealth, et cetera. So there's this divergence in the 19th century. By the 20th century, what this means is that the literature and the idea culturally of self-making has become very confused, right? We see some individuals, great athletes, for example, who pick themselves up from being cut from their basketball team, et cetera, you know, Michael Jordan kind of story. You get cut from your basketball team. What do you do? You go out and you practice. You work even harder. You become more determined. You change yourself. You adapt to circumstances. You figure out what is necessary to your success, to your goal, right? And Michael Jordan's goal obviously was to be the best basketball player ever and many would argue he probably achieved that, at least within his generation. Arguments to current players notwithstanding, Michael Jordan was the best basketball player who ever lived when he retired and he set himself that goal and he did everything necessary to that goal. He engaged in a process of rational planning and thinking, just like Franklin had suggested. Now it's a different goal, but then look at what happens. Michael Jordan or Sam Walton or Steve Jobs gets pulled down by this. Right? On the one hand, the people who make the mistake of the psychological self say, oh, but they're unhappy. Look, he got divorced. Look, he doesn't have everything he wants. Look, he's psychologically troubled. Or they make the example, he doesn't do enough for others. He didn't really do this. It's not his responsibility. Somebody else built that, right? Michael Jordan can't play by himself, right? He needs four other guys on the court. This fallacy that just because other people are involved in mutual trade operations, which is basically what a team is. You're doing trading skills and interests in the common goal of victory. I always liked that. You guys know that quotation from Michael Jordan. Although there's no I in team, there is in win. He told a coach that once. His coach said there's no I in team and he said, well, there is in win. Which is, you know, if I want to win and I want to be a part of this team, I have to focus on myself but obviously not to the detriment of other players. We all know the characteristic player in sports who actually is not so much selfish as self-indulgent. Showy, showoff, and they don't win. They lost the I in that sense. But whether it's Michael Jordan or Sam Walton or Steve Jobs, the culture starts to corrode this away. Even though there are still examples of people doing this, we aren't like the 19th century. If you go back to the early 19th century, it's just astounding. The literature, we could fill this whole stage with books of examples of literature. McGuffey readers, what they used to give to school children, the Horatio Alger stories, the very famous series of books which were all about little kids, basically street urchins who picked themselves up and didn't necessarily earn riches but earned respectability. They made their way in the world. They got a better job than what their other little friends on the street, the little guys running around homeless and whatnot. They actually made it out of that, and he portrayed that.