 So you mentioned Dave Rubin and Steven Pinker and Sam Harris. How about Jordan Peterson? So, I mean, Jordan, I think is problematic. Again, I think there's some issues, but we align and where there's interesting things, certainly on free speech. I think all these people, kind of the intellectual doc web, it's being called today. The thing they share is a respect for free speech. And I respect them for respecting free speech because I can't think of a more important issue in the world right now than free speech. And one of the things that saddens me is how many on the right seem to confuse free speech and don't understand what free speech is. So they claim Facebook is censoring as if Facebook has a gun. But so I respect them and I want to work with them to promote free speech. The other thing I respect about Jordan Peterson and the others is their willingness to talk to people they disagree with. So their willingness to actually engage in a conversation, not a fistfight or not a dismissive kind of. So while I think it's important for objectivists not to be in a tent with Jordan Peterson, but to clearly identify the differences and the differences are deep, the differences are substantial, whether it's in ethics, whether it's in suddenly an epistemology of metaphysics, the differences are as big as they get. He's a Kantian epistemologically and I think Kantian ultimately metaphysically. And he's got the same kind of motivations and he's a mystic in some respects. But I think it so you know, he claims not he claims to not to like the postmodernist, but he sounds a lot like them sometimes. So all of that is all of that is true, but he's willing to engage in a conversation and he's and he's willing to have a conversation about deep important ideas and his fans are willing to listen to a conversation about deep important ideas. Where do you get a person who can attract a quarter of a million people to listen to a two hour conversation epistemology? It just doesn't happen. So I'll take that opportunity every day. If you give it to me to have a discussion, I wouldn't do it because I don't know epistemology well enough, but to give to an objectivist epistemologist the opportunity to discuss with Jordan Peterson epistemology when he can bring that kind of audience to the table, hopefully we can have an influence on them. So what do you make of arguments that people like Jordan Peterson make when when he claims that look, hey, a bit of inequality is fine, of course, but when the inequality gets too extreme, when there are too many people stacked up at the bottom, that is when societies become destabilized. What do you make of that argument? I ask him to give me an example. And the fact is that the only example they always got, oh, the French Revolution. Yeah, but the French Revolution was a king. It was an unfree society. So yes, if you stack it up like that in an unfree society, you will get a revolution. But there was no revolution in 19th century America. There was no revolution in Hong Kong. There's no revolution in modern America. I don't see social unrest. I actually don't see the workers of America united against the rich. But to the extent that it exists, it exists because of bad philosophical ideas, not because of economic realities. We're not economic determinists. I thought Jordan Peterson was not a Marxist. But I think Jordan's very confused about these issues, and I've told him so. And then he goes to this is this is his bizarre argument. But again, it's kind of evolutionary psychology argument. Well, there's 10% of the population has an IQ below some number that even the US army won't have 80 or something like that. They're not confident of doing anything. And if what do you do about those people? And a, that has nothing to do with inequality. So let's assume you have to do something with those people. And therefore we create a big charity to help them out because, because they really can't. But I was in the army. I saw really, really, really dumb people. I mean, really low IQ people. They can drive a tank. I've seen them do it in the Israeli army. I, you know, I was in Chicago recently and I'm sitting in an office in a high tower. And I see across across in the window, I see these guys cleaning windows and like the 50th story of a building, and they're sitting on this little thing cleaning the window. And I'm like, I probably got a IQ than they have. You couldn't pay me enough. You can $10 million. And I'm not getting on that thing. Those windows, right? So and now Jordan would say alone Musk would say, well, one day we'll have robots doing it. Sure. But there will always be jobs from manual labors will always come up with something that people will do with their hands that does not require that big of an IQ. And I will add this, computers make us smarter. Even people with low IQ are smarter because of computers. One day, I could imagine that not only robots are going to get smarter, but human beings will get smarter. Why? Because we'll be able to plan to chip in somebody's mind and have him be able to do certain tasks independent of his IQ, because he'll be relying on the computing power of the computer and he'll be providing whatever it is that we can provide as human beings to do the work. So I am not as pessimistic about technology about the human race and about low IQ people. I mean, the women at the nail salon don't have to have a high IQ. And then I mean, I don't know, I don't know where you live. But if you live in California, every strip mall has at least one nail salon. There are literally tens of thousands, mostly East Asians working at these nail salons. You know, I don't care about IQ. So I've never thought about what's IQ of these women. But I can tell you it doesn't take a high IQ to do the work that they're doing. So I don't see massive unemployment among so-called low IQ people. I just don't see the issue. I think it's an issue we make up. I think in this case, it's an issue Jordan Peterson has made up, because he knows all these stats and he consulted with the US Army once and they told him about never not hiring these people with low IQ. And he thinks, oh, they couldn't work in my job. Yeah, they couldn't be a psychologist. But really, there are no jobs where a low IQ person can make a living. It's just not true, I would say.