Speaker 1: And broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the
Speaker 1: George Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe.
Speaker 2: Getty, Armstrong and Getty and Hee Armstrong and Getty Strong
Speaker 2: not live, We're not here. It's the Armstrong and Getty replay.
Speaker 3: But what we have for you is delicious a collection
Speaker 3: of some of our best stuff.
Speaker 2: You can hear more, of course on our podcast Armstrong
Speaker 2: Eddy on Demand.
Speaker 3: And hey you get through your Christmas shopping list at
Speaker 3: the Armstrong and Getdy superstore, shirts, hoodies and much more so.
Speaker 2: Now enjoy the Armstrong and Geddy replay. We talked about
Speaker 2: this a little bit earlier, but I want to get
Speaker 2: into more of the specifics because I find this really interesting.
Speaker 2: The headline sort of hides a lot of the really
Speaker 2: good stuff. The headline being that you reach your functional
Speaker 2: peak as a human later than they had previously thought.
Speaker 2: Now functional functional is what we're going to get into
Speaker 2: defining here that word as they use sixteen different dimensions.
Speaker 2: This is a serious, like university study. This is not
Speaker 2: I don't know so many studies and you should look
Speaker 2: out for this. It's fun to talk about him. So
Speaker 2: many studies that you hear that are you know it
Speaker 2: turns out, you know it's paid for by the pudding corporation,
Speaker 2: and it turns out you'd be better off eating more
Speaker 2: pudding in your life or whatever, right exactly, Just dumb
Speaker 2: stuff like that. But it turns out that people reach
Speaker 2: their functional peak in their late fifties early sixties, decades
Speaker 2: later than most people assume when you figure in all
Speaker 2: these different things. So physical strength obviously, and certain cognitive
Speaker 2: abilities like processing speed decline steadily after your mid twenties,
Speaker 2: and I think we all canna test. Yes, if you're
Speaker 2: past your mid twenties, you're aware of that, But a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of other things you get stronger at for
Speaker 2: quite some time, but they all diminish it eventually. Intelligence, personality,
Speaker 2: emotional intelligence, decision making, overall functioning continues developing through midlife,
Speaker 2: reaching its apex at around sixty years old. A twenty
Speaker 2: five year old can process information faster, hold more items
Speaker 2: in their working memory, and solve abstract reasoning problems more
Speaker 2: quickly than someone decades older. So that stuff, you're better
Speaker 2: at twenty five than you are later. And that's who
Speaker 2: was I talking to the other day. They were younger
Speaker 2: than me and they're talking about how they forget stuff now,
Speaker 2: and I said, yeah, I finally had to give in
Speaker 2: and start like leaving my self notes because I used
Speaker 2: to just I used to be very proud of I
Speaker 2: just I could remember everything I needed to do and
Speaker 2: how I was going to do it, and I just
Speaker 2: knew I was going to remember. That worked for a
Speaker 2: while and then it until it didn't. Fluid intelligence, because
Speaker 2: we were talking about working memory there, holding information in
Speaker 2: your head and all that sort of stuff, peaks around
Speaker 2: twenty five. Fluid intelligence, the ability to think on your
Speaker 2: feet and solve novel program problems, peaks at twenty and
Speaker 2: declines after that. Wow, isn't that something? Huh? Okay, that's
Speaker 2: probably good for you know a lot of your military
Speaker 2: age people and the kind of decisions they got to
Speaker 2: make really quickly on their feet and they're around twenty
Speaker 2: years old.
Speaker 3: Yeah, man, there's a lot to this. Yeah, other terms
Speaker 3: to understand and subtleties and the rest of Yeah.
Speaker 2: Other advantages emerge with age that younger adults haven't had
Speaker 2: time to develop. Crystallized intelligence, which is not a term
Speaker 2: i'd but it means accumulated knowledge and vocabulary obviously keeps
Speaker 2: rising well until your sixties, right that you can call
Speaker 2: it wisdom if you wanted to. Financial literacy for some
Speaker 2: reason improves into your late sixties early seventies. It goes
Speaker 2: beyond that, it goes beyond other kinds of inteligence, and
Speaker 2: that's something. Yeah, But then dig this one. Moral reasoning,
Speaker 2: because this all comes under the category of you being
Speaker 2: able to function. So some of then drop off early,
Speaker 2: some of them go later. Moral reasoning tends to rise
Speaker 2: through most of adulthood, and research indicates that it reverses
Speaker 2: very late in life. Your moral reasoning will reverse very
Speaker 2: late in life. It's all rob a bank and have
Speaker 2: an affair or what's what's that all about. I'm gonna
Speaker 2: have to ask my slaves if they agree very late
Speaker 2: in life you're a little late in life. I think
Speaker 2: I think you're just a bad person if you got
Speaker 2: slaves at this point.
Speaker 3: Well guilty, Yeah, is this thing true? I mean, it's
Speaker 3: interesting that they came up with different terms, or more
Speaker 3: specific terms for the aspects of wisdom. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: we need all of them, but it's interesting to hear
Speaker 3: it broken out. I mean, you just you have so
Speaker 3: many case studies, not only your own, but those of
Speaker 3: close friends and relatives and their experiences, and you just
Speaker 3: you're You're like a much more experienced surgeon. Yes, Michael,
Speaker 3: maybe that's why so many old people say whatever's on
Speaker 3: their mind, because they have no more moral reasoning.
Speaker 2: I don't know. Is the case of the efforts the
Speaker 2: same as moral reasoning, yeah, or you know, combines in
Speaker 2: some cases. But yeah, well, Katie and I were talking
Speaker 2: earlier when you were gone. Just some of this stuff
Speaker 2: really flies in the face of why do we have
Speaker 2: eighty year olds running the country? Oh? On some of these,
Speaker 2: some of these, but right.
Speaker 3: I got a bunch of old guys running the country,
Speaker 3: and their financial literacy appears to be there is none.
Speaker 2: Emotional intelligence climbs through midlife before tapering off. Based on
Speaker 2: research comparing age groups older adults, this is a financial one.
Speaker 2: I guess older adults are about twice as likely as
Speaker 2: younger adults to avoid the sunk cost fallacy, the habit
Speaker 2: of throwing good money after bad twice as likely at
Speaker 2: like sixty as you would be at thirty. Of understanding,
Speaker 2: now you know this turned out to be a bad idea.
Speaker 2: Let's just move on, as opposed to well, we've come
Speaker 2: this far, we better keep spending more money, right, Yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I would agree.
Speaker 3: Again, it's a question of having lived through that sort
Speaker 3: of thing a couple of times and realizing, Okay, this
Speaker 3: is really disappointing, but we have to admit it's a
Speaker 3: loser and move on.
Speaker 2: Yeah. It's interesting that they separate out financial intelligence, where
Speaker 2: it might just be all wisdom there, it's just accumulated
Speaker 2: knowledge and personality also matures with age. Conscientiousness and emotional stability,
Speaker 2: which are the two traits that are most strongly linked
Speaker 2: to career success and life satisfaction according to this study.
Speaker 2: I have to say that again. So the two traits
Speaker 2: most strongly linked to career success and life satisfaction. Which
Speaker 2: I don't know about you, but having a satisfying life
Speaker 2: is way up on my list of priorities.
Speaker 3: Who's ass you kiss? That's the most important thing. It's
Speaker 3: not who you know, it's who you beep.
Speaker 2: Wow, Conscientiousness and emotional stability are the two traits you
Speaker 2: need for life satisfaction. That makes sense. But both increase
Speaker 2: from early adulthood well into your fifties and sixties, so
Speaker 2: that's good. Researchers waited these various dimensions and created a
Speaker 2: composite intex tracking overall functioning and overall functioning peaks between
Speaker 2: fifty five and sixty with clear declines emerging about sixty
Speaker 2: five to seventy. So I got a few years left before,
Speaker 2: I mean, because I'm barely functioning now, I got a
Speaker 2: few really chairs left before it really starts to crash. Pressure.
Speaker 2: You don't You don't get much time to enjoy your peak,
Speaker 2: do you know? Well, we're not designed to live past that, right,
Speaker 2: Really conscientiousness and emotional what was it? Stability? Stability? Yeah?
Speaker 3: Can that be translated as being beaten down or emotional stability?
Speaker 3: I'm fine, I've been kicked before. Well, there, it is
Speaker 3: true you get emotional stability.
Speaker 2: But I remember, God, quite a few years ago, I
Speaker 2: was proud of some reaction I had to something, and
Speaker 2: you you said, it's just because you have lower testosterolully
Speaker 2: admit that, which took all the fun out of it.
Speaker 2: But there is you do also gain emotional stability. Don't
Speaker 2: you think it isn't just low tea because of Again,
Speaker 2: because you've been through these situations before, this isn't the
Speaker 2: first time you've had a boss shoot off about something
Speaker 2: dumb or whatever situation are you, you get something in
Speaker 2: the mail from the tax board that's going to be
Speaker 2: a pain in the ass. It's not the first time
Speaker 2: any of these things have happens. You don't quite get
Speaker 2: as crazy.
Speaker 3: Well please if anybody disagrees with this, By the time
Speaker 3: you're playing in your third Super Bowl, you're focused on
Speaker 3: the game.
Speaker 2: You're focused on doing your job and a way you
Speaker 2: can't be the first time. As example, Or think about
Speaker 2: raising kids, the second kid versus the first kid. I mean,
Speaker 2: think about shir Yeah, the just the you know, the
Speaker 2: first time your first kid falls down and binks their
Speaker 2: head versus when you get into the second kid. Yeah,
Speaker 2: they're out there, they're fine.
Speaker 3: Getting back to the testosterone thing, though, what what you
Speaker 3: need to remember, I think, or maybe you don't.
Speaker 2: I don't know, is that.
Speaker 3: Virtually everything we think, everything we do, is chemicals slashing
Speaker 3: around in our brain and the spark of the divine.
Speaker 3: But and I believe in free will. I believe we
Speaker 3: have a certain amount of control over how we're going
Speaker 3: to react, and you work to develop that. But I mean, yeah,
Speaker 3: so of course different levels of different chemicals is going
Speaker 3: to affect the way you approach life.
Speaker 2: That's it's it's obvious, it has to be. Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm just trying to claim that any any growth I've
Speaker 2: had is not all because I have Lord tip thoughts.
Speaker 2: Oh no, no, not at all. I would never say
Speaker 2: credit for some growth.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 3: Well, I think that that discretionary part I was talking
Speaker 3: about that absolutely grows because you've gone through it once
Speaker 3: when you lost your head. You've gone through it another
Speaker 3: time where you didn't lose your head, and you're thinking, yeah,
Speaker 3: I'm staying calm again this time. Yeah, and then when
Speaker 3: he leaves for the day, I'll take a poop on his.
Speaker 2: Desk and whatever it takes. Vengeance. Vengeance is fine. A
Speaker 2: little sugar in the gas tank take care of that probably, Yeah,
Speaker 2: served cold, right, you know what I'm saying. Huh, good
Speaker 2: luck breaking down in the freeway on the that's way
Speaker 2: you hand it. When you get older. The fact that
Speaker 2: you're like super quick thinking cognitive reasoning drops after twenty Wow,
Speaker 2: that's early in life. Yeah, yeah, so kind of wrapping
Speaker 2: enough studies. Studies cited by the authors show that people
Speaker 2: typically earn their highest salaries and reach peak occupational prestige
Speaker 2: between fifty and fifty five. It's not just because you've
Speaker 2: been around the company for a long time or blah
Speaker 2: blah blah. It's actually when you've got the most accumulated
Speaker 2: knowledge and emotional stability and all those sorts of things. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and shirt, you're most likely to do a good job
Speaker 2: at it. Yeah, exactly. Now, the fact, as it says
Speaker 2: here that the leaders of many political countries are in
Speaker 2: their seventies or eighties is not Yeah, these are all
Speaker 2: averages though, of course, I mean just flat out on
Speaker 2: the face of it. Obviously, Donald Trump's brain is different
Speaker 2: than Joe Biden's brain, absolutely true.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And it strikes me that in a lot of
Speaker 3: your tech industries, for instance, your your tech companies, they're
Speaker 3: run by wunderkins, these these young phenoms who are not
Speaker 3: fifty five years old, when they have their greatest success.
Speaker 3: Is that because there is no accumulated knowledge to be
Speaker 3: had in.
Speaker 2: Their fields specific to that field.
Speaker 3: I mean, management is management, dealing with people is dealing
Speaker 3: with people. But maybe energy and willingness to work eighty
Speaker 3: hours a week and not being tied to any sort
Speaker 3: of quote unquote accumulated wisdom, maybe that explains it.
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean because you'd think it.
Speaker 3: Sam Altman, for instance, would hire a gray haired CEO
Speaker 3: and say, I'll just worry about the innovation stuff. You
Speaker 3: run the company. But that's not the way it goes.
Speaker 3: The fifty five year old CEO would say, what are
Speaker 3: we doing? What's the point of this?
Speaker 5: What is this?
Speaker 3: I keep telling you it's AI AI artificial intelligence.
Speaker 2: All right, robots. The fact that my moral compass may
Speaker 2: go south on me and my old age, that's got me,
Speaker 2: uh concerned. I wonder what sort of high jinks I'll
Speaker 2: be up to? How bad could it get?
Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Getty Show or Jack your Joe podcasts
Speaker 1: and our hot links Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty The
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 5: A sheriff's officer in Indiana went into an elementary school
Speaker 5: to jokingly hand out tickets to students using the phrase
Speaker 5: six seven. Everyone had a good laugh, and he pulled
Speaker 5: out his gun and said, now tell me what it means.
Speaker 2: That is a dark joke, but a funny one. Oh
Speaker 2: I'm funny. You have to have the cops come to
Speaker 2: the school hanging out tickets for saying six to seven.
Speaker 3: That's pretty funny. Yeah, yeah, good stuff. They are calling
Speaker 3: it mar A Lago face Jack. Since January, plastic surgeries
Speaker 3: in DC have seen a wave of Trump insiders and
Speaker 3: would be insiders asking for overt procedures in line with
Speaker 3: what they're calling the mara A Lago face look for
Speaker 3: the longest time instic surgery.
Speaker 2: Mar A Lago the club where Trump lives down in Florida. Yes, yes,
Speaker 2: that would that's the one.
Speaker 3: Yes. Most plastic surgeons in Washington, d C, like other places,
Speaker 3: have long gone with the nobody's sure you had anything done,
Speaker 3: You just look good?
Speaker 2: Look well, uh.
Speaker 3: The President Trump is all in on aesthetics and Boulder
Speaker 3: is always better and so uh. People in the inner
Speaker 3: circle and those who would be again are embracing a
Speaker 3: maximalist ethos when it comes to their look. Plastic surgeon
Speaker 3: Troy Pittman is big in DC, I guess works with
Speaker 3: a lot of Trump insiders. We're quote, we're seeing people
Speaker 3: want to look like they've had something done.
Speaker 2: He says. I suppose that the logical next step, and
Speaker 2: it doesn't have to be about mar A Lago. Maybe
Speaker 2: that's what's been going on in Hollywood all these years,
Speaker 2: and I didn't get it because I was as I
Speaker 2: was saying, how's nobody told you that you took it
Speaker 2: too far? Well, I suppose that when it's been around
Speaker 2: for decades at some point the next logical iteration is
Speaker 2: you want to look like you've had work done because
Speaker 2: it makes you a certain sort of person.
Speaker 3: While all the school beltweers tend to be hashage about
Speaker 3: their tune ups, the Palm Beach crowds all systems go,
Speaker 3: says doctor Pittman. Fillers are big with this crew, especially
Speaker 3: lips as are botox in disport, which I don't even
Speaker 3: know about.
Speaker 2: Let's see a different DC.
Speaker 3: Politopastic platic surgeon says she's actually turned down a bunch
Speaker 3: of people who want that because she just doesn't do that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I didn't this all make sense to me. People
Speaker 2: like me who've never had that done, and run around
Speaker 2: with people who've never had that done. We've been wrong
Speaker 2: all along. They're not trying to fool us. They want to.
Speaker 5: They want to.
Speaker 2: They want a big statement that says I get work done.
Speaker 3: Okay, Well you're you're half right that, as Nelly Bowls
Speaker 3: writes in the Free Press, the director of his Bigger
Speaker 3: Lips doc and Eyes that Never Shut so it's not
Speaker 3: to miss a thing. Tarantula lashes charcoal, smear it on
Speaker 3: your lids. Everyone dresses to please the king, even if
Speaker 3: the royal aesthetic is if Poltergeist were an escort anyway.
Speaker 3: But then this other DC plastic surgeon who does subtle
Speaker 3: stuff says.
Speaker 2: That these people.
Speaker 3: Want extra fillers and injections on top of already treated faces,
Speaker 3: which can be dangerous. She says it's a situation she
Speaker 3: calls filler blind. If you add more and more product
Speaker 3: to your face and are surrounded by people who do
Speaker 3: the same, you lose sight of anatomic normalcy. Clearly that
Speaker 3: is true. So no, they don't want you to know
Speaker 3: it necessarily. They've just completely lost track of what's normal
Speaker 3: and what looks good.
Speaker 2: Man. If I could get a little something done without
Speaker 2: anybody noticing that, I would absolutely do it.
Speaker 3: The fellas are in line too, Jack looking for a
Speaker 3: botox liposuction and the suction and eyelid rejuvenation. It's Pete
Speaker 3: Hegsat's Washington. Now you got a young fit and.
Speaker 4: Hands, Jack Armstrong and Joe The Armstrong and Getty Show,
Speaker 4: The Armstrong and Getdy Show.
Speaker 6: Wikipedia said that traffic to their site is falling because
Speaker 6: people are using AI instead, and AI said the same
Speaker 6: thing slightly reworded it inside of them as a source.
Speaker 2: It's pretty clever, actually, that's pretty clear. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the way we see our jobs around here, speaking
Speaker 3: for myself is yeah, we bring you news of the
Speaker 3: day and our thoughts, but we're also curators of you know, ideas.
Speaker 3: I that's the most fun part of the job for
Speaker 3: me is reading all day long and trying to find
Speaker 3: the best ideas and bring them to you. Sometimes there
Speaker 3: are sometimes they're not. And I came across that's the
Speaker 3: way you describe our jobs.
Speaker 2: I'm more of a lavishly paid to blather on barely
Speaker 2: knowing what I'm talking about. Oh that's your special charm.
Speaker 3: I came across this great piece by author Helen Andrews,
Speaker 3: and a number of our more student listeners have centered
Speaker 3: along saying in sn OMG, have you guys seen this?
Speaker 3: And it's a little longer than something we would generally
Speaker 3: read to you, but it is so good and I
Speaker 3: think so important it's worth it. It's entitled The Great Feminization.
Speaker 3: And here's a disclaimer real quickly, because, as you know,
Speaker 3: a happily married guy who I love and respect my wife.
Speaker 2: I have two daughters. My mom is a saint. Blah
Speaker 2: blah blah.
Speaker 3: Women in women, womanhood are essential to the functioning of mankind.
Speaker 3: I am a great believer in balance. People who ask
Speaker 3: me about politics, I always tell them, Look, I'm a
Speaker 3: really conservative conservative, but I believe we need navy seales
Speaker 3: and poets for society to work. For the world to work,
Speaker 3: we need men and women, the masculine, the effeminate. That's
Speaker 3: the way we're made by God or creation or whatever.
Speaker 2: Anyway.
Speaker 3: Having said that, the great feminization Helen Andrews and Jack
Speaker 3: obviously dive in whenever you want. In twenty nineteen, she writes,
Speaker 3: I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that
Speaker 3: change the way I look at the world. The author
Speaker 3: argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as president of
Speaker 3: Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture. We
Speaker 3: entire a lot at the time. Oh yeah, the entire
Speaker 3: and she explains exactly what happened. If you're trying to
Speaker 3: remember what happened, the entire woke era could be extrapolated
Speaker 3: from that moment. From the details of how Summers was
Speaker 3: canceled and most of all who did the canceling women.
Speaker 3: The basic facts of the Summer's case are familiar. January fourteenth,
Speaker 3: twenty oh five, at a conference on diversifying the science
Speaker 3: and engineering workforce, Larry Summers gave a talk that was
Speaker 3: supposed to be off the record. In it, he said
Speaker 3: that female under representation and hard sciences was partly due
Speaker 3: to quote different availability of aptitude at the high end,
Speaker 3: as well as taste difference as preferences between men and
Speaker 3: women not attributable to socialization, meaning dudes just tend to xxct.
Speaker 3: Some female professors and attendants were offended and sent his
Speaker 3: remarks to a reporter in defiance of the off the
Speaker 3: record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no confidence
Speaker 3: vote by the Harvard faculty and eventually Summer's resignation. The
Speaker 3: essay argued that it wasn't just that women had canceled
Speaker 3: the president of Harvard. It was that they'd canceled him
Speaker 3: in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather
Speaker 3: than logical arguments.
Speaker 2: Quote.
Speaker 3: When he started talking about innate differences and aptitudes between
Speaker 3: men and women, I just couldn't breathe, because this kind
Speaker 3: of bias makes.
Speaker 2: Me physically ill.
Speaker 3: Oh my god, said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT.
Speaker 3: Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another,
Speaker 3: and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time.
Speaker 3: Experts chimed in to declare that everything Somers had said
Speaker 3: about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational
Speaker 3: appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria. This cancelation
Speaker 3: was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancelations are feminine.
Speaker 3: Cancel culture is simply what women do when there are
Speaker 3: enough of them in a given organization or field. That
Speaker 3: is the great feminization thesis, which the same author later
Speaker 3: elaborated on at book length. Everything you think of as
Speaker 3: wokeness is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
Speaker 2: I like where this is. I like where this is going.
Speaker 3: The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It
Speaker 3: really did unlock the secrets of the era we were
Speaker 3: living in. Here's the point I disagree with. Wokeness is
Speaker 3: not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a
Speaker 3: result of post Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns
Speaker 3: of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in
Speaker 3: number until recently.
Speaker 2: How did I not see it before?
Speaker 3: My disagreement with the Marxism point is that Michelle Foucaut,
Speaker 3: who's really the godfather of critical theory and neo Marxism,
Speaker 3: he understood human nature and he understood how making an
Speaker 3: emotional moral argument could get people to ignore facts. That's
Speaker 3: why they're so intent on getting you to say a
Speaker 3: man can give birth to a baby. Because if you
Speaker 3: can be pried away from logic and rely on pure
Speaker 3: emotion and what the crowd says you should say, then
Speaker 3: they've gotcha. So this is not divorced from Marxism, it's
Speaker 3: just another layer of it. But anyway, on with the essay,
Speaker 3: let's see. Then she mentions a couple of firsts people
Speaker 3: think about the feminization of like the first woman to
Speaker 3: attend law school in eighteen sixty nine, first woman to
Speaker 3: argue before the Supreme Court in eighteen eighty, first female
Speaker 3: Supreme Court justice nineteen eighty one. But she says a
Speaker 3: much more important tipping point is when law schools became
Speaker 3: majority female, which occurred in twenty sixteen, or when law
Speaker 3: firms associated became majority female, which occurred in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 3: when Sandrade O'Connor was appointed to the High Court, only
Speaker 3: five percent of judges were female. Today, women are thirty
Speaker 3: three percent of the judges in America and sixty three
Speaker 3: percent of the judges appointed by President Biden sixty three percent.
Speaker 3: The same trajectory can be seen in many professions, pioneering
Speaker 3: generations women in the sixties and seventies, increasing female representative
Speaker 3: representation through the eighties and nineties, and gender par parody
Speaker 3: finally arriving in twenty tens or twenty twenties. For instance,
Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy four or only ten percent of New
Speaker 3: York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff
Speaker 3: became majority female in twenty eighteen, and today the female
Speaker 3: share is fifty five percent. Medical schools became majority female
Speaker 3: in twenty nineteen. Women became a majority of the college
Speaker 3: educated workforce nationwide. In twenty nineteen, women became a majority
Speaker 3: of college instructors in twenty twenty three. Women are not
Speaker 3: yet a majority of the managers in America, but they
Speaker 3: might be soon. They're now forty six percent. So the
Speaker 3: timing fits Wokeness arose around the same time that many
Speaker 3: important institutions tip tip demographically from majority male to majority female.
Speaker 3: All right, so what you're saying, here's here's what she means.
Speaker 3: The substance fits too. Everything you think of wokeness involves
Speaker 3: prioritizing the feminine over the masculine, empathy over rationality, safety
Speaker 3: over risk, cohesion over competition. Give you a second to
Speaker 3: absorb that. One hundred percent right, one hundred percent right,
Speaker 3: and one hundred percent right. Those are all real interesting.
Speaker 3: Other writers have proposed their own versions of the great feminization.
Speaker 3: She drops a few names who looked at feminization's effect
Speaker 3: on academia, offers survey data showing sex differences in political values.
Speaker 3: One survey, for instance, found that seventy one percent of
Speaker 3: men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving
Speaker 3: a cohesive society. Whatever that means seventy one percent of men,
Speaker 3: sixty percent of women said the opposite.
Speaker 2: That doesn't surprise me, and as a for some reason,
Speaker 2: it popped into my head. You was talking about how
Speaker 2: when women got involved in youth sports, how it changed.
Speaker 2: Then we got uniforms at every age, and lots of
Speaker 2: team pictures and lots of ceremonies ceremonies and stuff. Yeah, yeah, anyway.
Speaker 3: And then she issues a disclaimer, which probably isn't necessary.
Speaker 3: But the most relevant differences are not about individuals but
Speaker 3: about groups. Yes, an individual woman might be taller than
Speaker 3: an individual man, but a group of ten random women
Speaker 3: is very unlikely to have an average height greater than
Speaker 3: that of ten men. The larger the group of the people,
Speaker 3: the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.
Speaker 3: So again, you independent thinking, free speech loving women out there,
Speaker 3: it's not about you. It's not about individuals, it's about
Speaker 3: in large groups, tendencies become more and more true.
Speaker 2: Anyway.
Speaker 3: The female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order
Speaker 3: each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade.
Speaker 3: Any criticism or negative sentiment if it is absolutely to
Speaker 3: be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments.
Speaker 3: The outcome of a discussion is less important than the
Speaker 3: fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it.
Speaker 3: The most important sex difference. The most important sex difference
Speaker 3: in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men
Speaker 3: wage conflict openly, while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.
Speaker 3: Any ladies like to disagree with that, Katie, feel free
Speaker 3: to jump.
Speaker 2: In if you like. Okay, do women that ostracize their
Speaker 2: enemies as opposed to confronting them openly and saying, hey,
Speaker 2: we have a problem. We need to settle this. Yeah,
Speaker 2: without a doubt.
Speaker 3: Barry Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New
Speaker 3: York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal
Speaker 3: slack messages as a racist, a nazi, and a bigot.
Speaker 2: And this is the most feminine part quote.
Speaker 3: Colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.
Speaker 2: Oh, she said, he resignation. Wow.
Speaker 3: Weiss wants asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk
Speaker 3: to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman
Speaker 3: who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was
Speaker 3: a failure to meet the basic standards of professionalism, obviously.
Speaker 3: It was also very feminine. Men tend to be better
Speaker 3: at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways
Speaker 3: a society wide failure to compartmentalize. Listen to this. This
Speaker 3: is another blockbuster point. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have
Speaker 3: opinions on the political issues the day, but he would
Speaker 3: regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions
Speaker 3: out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become
Speaker 3: more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on
Speaker 3: controversial issues, from gay rights to gaza. They even bring
Speaker 3: the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads,
Speaker 3: as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue
Speaker 3: in violation of COVID lockdowns because racism was a public
Speaker 3: health emergency.
Speaker 2: You're nodding your head, Gati. You've been in a hospital
Speaker 2: situations a lot more than us lately. You've seen that.
Speaker 7: Oh yeah, I've seen it. You know the little lanyards
Speaker 7: where they it's like their key to the doors. They
Speaker 7: all have the different little trinkets with you know, rainbows,
Speaker 7: and I saw Palestinian flag recently.
Speaker 2: Yeah, dudes wouldn't have done that.
Speaker 3: Now, one more note and then we will take a break.
Speaker 3: One book that helped me put together the pieces was
Speaker 3: Warriors and Warriors The Survival of the Sexes by psychology
Speaker 3: professor Joyce Beninson. Practically all of the scientists cite in
Speaker 3: this article are women. By the way, it's worth pointing
Speaker 3: out I think she theorizes that men developed dynamics optimized
Speaker 3: for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting
Speaker 3: their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory,
Speaker 3: explain why experimenters in modern psychology labs in a study
Speaker 3: the Barons and Sites observe that a group of men
Speaker 3: given a task will quote, jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,
Speaker 3: and then cheerfully relate a solution to the experimenter. A
Speaker 3: group of women given the same task will quote politely,
Speaker 3: inquire about one another's personal background and relationships, accompanied by
Speaker 3: much eye contact, smiling, and turn taking, and pay quote
Speaker 3: little attention to the task that the experimenter presented. The
Speaker 3: point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes,
Speaker 3: but it only works if peace is restored after the
Speaker 3: dispute is settled. Men therefore develop methods for reconciling with
Speaker 3: the proonent opponents, and learning to live in.
Speaker 2: Peace with people they were fighting yesterday.
Speaker 3: Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males.
Speaker 3: That is because because women's conflicts were traditionally within the
Speaker 3: tribe over scarce resources to be resolved not by open conflict,
Speaker 3: but by covert competition with rivals with no clear end.
Speaker 3: All of these observations match my observations of wokeness, but
Speaker 3: soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually
Speaker 3: gave way to a sinking feeling. If wokeness really is
Speaker 3: the result of the Great feminization, then the eruption of
Speaker 3: insanity in twenty twenty was just a small taste of
Speaker 3: what the future holds. Imagine what will happen is the
Speaker 3: remaining men age out of these society shaping professions and
Speaker 3: the younger, more feminized generations take full control.
Speaker 2: That's what I'm always saying that when we're all dead
Speaker 2: who remember them before times, there won't be anybody around
Speaker 2: to say, hey, it didn't used to be like this.
Speaker 1: The Armstrong and Getty Show.
Speaker 4: Yeah more Jack your show.
Speaker 1: Podcasts and our hot lakes.
Speaker 4: The Armstrong and Yetty Show.
Speaker 3: So perhaps you would like to leave a flaming bag
Speaker 3: of dog experiments on your neighbor front porch, but you
Speaker 3: lack such an item. You could go with Randy Weingarten's
Speaker 3: new book instead, Why Fascists Fear Teachers, Public Education, and
Speaker 3: the Future of Democracy. If there was ever a flaming
Speaker 3: bag of dog crap sold as a book. This is
Speaker 3: it Why fascists fear teachers? Who are these fascists? We'll
Speaker 3: get to that in a moment. So obviously the title
Speaker 3: is designed to be eye catching and attract readers, but
Speaker 3: by now, as this review puts it, the word fascist
Speaker 3: is thrown around routinely. The book's title, Public Education the
Speaker 3: Future Democracy is more significant deceptive. The book's purported intention
Speaker 3: is to argue for public school's crucial role in our
Speaker 3: democratic society, but it offers very little in the way
Speaker 3: of education policy or ideas that would truly benefit teachers
Speaker 3: or God forbids students.
Speaker 2: The random aim, yes, Randy Weingarten played the major role
Speaker 2: in keeping the schools closed during the pandemic, for instance, Yeah,
Speaker 2: I'm sorry, the American Federation of Teachers president for years
Speaker 2: and years and years. The real aim is made clear.
Speaker 3: It devotes most of its pages to attacking her political opponents,
Speaker 3: especially especially supporters of school choice, and defending the interests
Speaker 3: of the American Federation.
Speaker 2: Of Teachers, her big rich union.
Speaker 3: She starts out claiming ninety percent of American kids attend
Speaker 3: public schools. Not so fast, it was a little over
Speaker 3: eighty one percent four years ago at the beginning of COVID.
Speaker 3: So and that's before the expansion of universal school choice
Speaker 3: in states like Texas and New Hampshire. Half of American
Speaker 3: children now have access to school choice. So the number
Speaker 3: is far far lower than the ninety percent she claims.
Speaker 3: So it's appropriate the book would start off with lies.
Speaker 2: As it continues.
Speaker 3: In that vein, Winingarden characterizes the school choice movement as
Speaker 3: a conspiracy organized by Christopher Rufo, Moms for Liberty, and
Speaker 3: other hard right wing activists. Quote a plot to destroy
Speaker 3: public education. Yeah, I'd be all for that based on
Speaker 3: where it right now, you know, honestly, Yeah, I see
Speaker 3: your point. The real drivers of the choice movement, they
Speaker 3: point out, however, her parents like Virginia olden Ford, a black,
Speaker 3: low income other in Washington, DC who grew frustrated watching
Speaker 3: her sons struggle in public school and help create the
Speaker 3: DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, the nation's first federally funded voucher initiative.
Speaker 3: But yeah, she's a conspiracy Not sure, Randy, let's see
Speaker 3: Winngartan also insists that vouchers are devised by whites to
Speaker 3: undermine desegregation. Oh, it's racism, probably systemic racism. This isn't
Speaker 3: just wrong, it gets the history completely backward. In fact,
Speaker 3: some teachers' unions fought against vouchers because they facilitated integration.
Speaker 3: Wygarten claims she is quote willing to work with anyone
Speaker 3: who wants to actually address the problems facing our public schools,
Speaker 3: but she refuses to engage with school choice advocates who
Speaker 3: propose concrete and constructive options for students underserved by traditional
Speaker 3: school districts. Then she denigrates religious schools whose very purpose
Speaker 3: is in doctrination, that's a quote. This animus causes her
Speaker 3: to overlook the many advantages of faith based education, such
Speaker 3: as the Catholic school effect, which has been demonstrated to
Speaker 3: benefit disadvantage minority students in particular, has to do with
Speaker 3: high expectations and discipline and that sort of thing. The
Speaker 3: biggest deception in Windgarten's book is her portrayal of her
Speaker 3: role Jackie loved this during the pandemic, I quote I
Speaker 3: led the AFT in developing a concrete plan to reopen
Speaker 3: schools as quickly and safely as possible. When, of course,
Speaker 3: Winegotten and her union colleagues kept children American children out
Speaker 3: of schools until the government approved her request for a
Speaker 3: seven hundred and fifty billion dollar federal age package federal
Speaker 3: aid package to feather their nest and hire more administrations
Speaker 3: and more union members. Unbelievable. The book is primarily an
Speaker 3: attempt to rehabilitate Winegarten's image after she backed the longest
Speaker 3: school closures in American history, which yielded the largest drop
Speaker 3: in student performance ever recorded.
Speaker 2: Not to mention the emotional turmoil.
Speaker 3: And she mentions the Aforah mentioned fascists like ourselves in
Speaker 3: her title replace facts and critical thinking with propaganda that
Speaker 3: romanticizes the nation's past. No, absolutely obscene. You know, I
Speaker 3: gotta apologize to flaming bags of dog crap comparing them.
Speaker 2: To this book. It's insulting. Yeah, that's really maddening. I mean,
Speaker 2: we've talked about this a lot, and I hate her
Speaker 2: so much. Do you think she actually believes she's doing
Speaker 2: the right thing for kids or did she abandon that
Speaker 2: a long time ago. I don't. She couldn't. There's no way.
Speaker 2: There's no way she possibly thought keeping the schools closed
Speaker 2: was the best thing for the kids. Not a chance
Speaker 2: she actually believed that.
Speaker 3: Now unless her own evil in her need to you know,
Speaker 3: explain it has perverted her own mind to the point
Speaker 3: that she can't recognize truth. She's like, oh, J Simpson
Speaker 3: who thought he didn't kill his wife?
Speaker 2: Yeah, what a horrifying human being.
Speaker 4: Yeah, Armstrong and Getty