0:00 - Introduction to Susan Wojcicki
3:28 - Influence of Aggression and Authority
6:52 - Gender Dynamics in Responding to Conflict
10:34 - Pressures Faced by Susan Wojcicki
12:07 - Deplatforming of James Watson
13:16 - Importance of Scientific Inquiry
In this discussion, we delve into the complexities surrounding the life and pressures faced by Susan Wojcicki, the former CEO of YouTube. The conversation begins by touching upon the tragic loss of her son to a drug overdose, sparking considerations around the potential role of neglect in addiction. The speaker emphasizes how neglect, often subtle and hidden, can have profound effects, unlike more overt forms of abuse.
The discussion then shifts to the challenges Wojcicki faced in her role as a prominent figure at Google and YouTube, navigating media scrutiny, familial responsibilities, and societal pressures. The speaker reflects on the dynamics of power and authority, suggesting that individuals, particularly women, may feel compelled to appease aggressive and authoritative figures in their environment.
Further insights are shared on gender dynamics in responding to aggression, with the speaker highlighting evolutionary perspectives on how men and women tend to navigate competition and conflict. The differing approaches to handling upset individuals are discussed, with an emphasis on empathy and support for the perceived underdog.
The conversation also touches upon the impact of workaholism on family dynamics, drawing parallels to potential challenges Wojcicki may have faced in balancing her professional and personal life. The deplatforming of individuals, such as renowned cancer researcher James Watson, for discussing controversial topics like IQ and ethnicity is scrutinized, highlighting the implications of ideological censorship on scientific progress and potential medical advancements.
Overall, the discussion weaves together reflections on personal struggles, societal pressures, and the consequences of ideological stances on critical issues like scientific inquiry and medical advancement. The speaker invites introspection on the broader implications of navigating power dynamics, gender norms, and the pursuit of truth in various domains of life.
[0:00] So, two other thoughts that I had with regards to Susan Wojcicki, the recently deceased ex-CEO of YouTube.
[0:12] There's an interesting fact about causality in the universe. Now, one of these I've mentioned before. The other one I don't think I have. It's fairly spicy, but I'm going to mention it anyway because I'm always really interested in cause and effect in life.
[0:28] Now, she has five children. She gave birth to five children, but her son died of a drug overdose in his dormitory room in university. I think it was in February of this year, 2024. Now, of course, I don't know the history behind the young man's drug addiction, but certainly from the people that I've interviewed, such as Dr. Gabor Mate and others, and his great book in the realm of hungry ghosts which you should definitely check out if you've ever had to deal with addiction as a whole but usually addiction is the result of child abuse and neglect of course is one of the most insidious forms of child abuse i think neglect is certainly one of the most dangerous forms of child abuse because the effects are so hidden they're not You get beaten up, it's fairly obvious. You get screamed at, called names, it's fairly obvious, you know, that something bad and dysfunctional is going on. If you are sexually abused, then it's clear, as long as you remember and all that, but it's clear that, you know, terrible stuff happened and...
[1:43] You can work with it. And the effects are clear. The effects of neglect are really insidious, though. As I sort of cavalierly and overly bravely said when I was younger, how could I miss what I never had, you know, with regards to my father? So, neglect is really tough. Now, if you have five children and your husband is working hard and you are, you know, Google employee number 18 and in charge of the biggest video platform and, Fielding issues from the media and then, you know, because the way the media works, we know, is that they will write articles about how bad alternative media is.
[2:27] And then they say, well, look at these ads next to the alternative media platforms. And then they get the alternative media platforms wiped out. I remember back in the day sort of trying to explain to my daughter what I did and why it was important. You know, I would go and I would go to one of my tweets, right? And I would say, here's my tweet. And then I would say, let's go to the last tweet from, you know, CNN or the New York Times or NPR or NBC. And I would say, look at the difference, right? Look at the difference. And that's not fun for them right that that i would be getting more tweets as a guy in his living room than they would with their entire bureaus and you know 150 200 million dollar budgets and so on right so you know they would try to work to get alternative media figures taken out and so you're getting a lot of pressure from the media writing up about their direct competitors editors, and.
[3:28] I mean, a lot of people as a whole, but women in general tend to respond to aggression and authority for obvious reasons of evolutionary selection. Women tend to respond to appease the most aggressive and most authoritarian or authoritative person in the vicinity because they're the ones who have the highest status and the most power. Power and that would be something that women in general you know being smaller and physically less robust than men women tend to respond to authoritarian aggressive and authoritative.
[4:06] They they individuals or organizations they tend to respond to the more aggressive ones and so when the advertisers were sorry when the media would be very aggressive and has its sort of supposed authority, and they're writing about individuals. Well, most people can't evaluate arguments. They can only evaluate power. And again, I have no idea what was going on in Susan's mind. Again, sorry to be overly familiar with the first name, but that last name is a mouthful. I don't know what was going on in Susan's mind, but from sort of my, I guess, close to almost 58 years or 50 years of observation, it does tend to be the case that that whoever is more formal, more authoritarian, authoritative, and aggressive, people as a whole, and women maybe slightly more, tend to respond to. So, for instance, a man, if a competitor is complaining about another competitor, the man's instinct is to say, well, do better. better, just do better, right? If someone's complaining that, you know, I'm paying for a very expensive coach and very expensive training facilities, and this other guy who's just running around his backyard is doing better than me, that's not fair, that's bad, that's wrong, he's a Nazi. Well, I mean, men tend to be like, laugh at someone like that and say, why are you complaining to me? Just go work harder, work better, right?
[5:34] But I was uncrippled by, you know, HR departments and mandates and woke stuff and all of that. So I could just sort of speak the truth and interview whoever I wanted without having to run it through a whole bunch of layers. And so I had sort of nimbleness and response and all of that. And, you know, obviously a certain kind of courage or lack of caution, for better or for worse. So she would be, as a whole, in general, on average, right, more likely to respond in a more compliant manner to duplicate those with greater aggression, authority, and authoritativeness. Credibility, so to speak. Because she would only, as most people do, only evaluate the power dynamic, not the truth or falsehood. So if they were to say, well, he's talking about IQ.
[6:26] Then the first question that most men would have is, okay, and? Well, it's offensive. It's like, okay, then rebut him, right? Have him on, have him on for a debate, approve him wrong, rebut him, right? But they can't, right? So then if you won't rebut him, then it would be like, well, it can't matter that much to you if you're not going to have him on and have him debate and so on, right? Which, you know, I would have done that.
[6:53] So then if you won't if you can't compete with someone and you won't debate them and you say that they're just bad offensive and wrong but you won't disprove them or invite them to debate and so on then for men it's like then you know deal with it just live with it right i mean if you can't prove him wrong and you won't have him on to debate and you're just complaining and whining about him then you just rebut him or let it go or whatever right but that's not how the more authoritarian mind tends to work.
[7:23] Someone's upset, they need to be placated. Men in general are slightly better at people being upset because men live in a world of upset. So women generally need to get along because they're collectively raised. I mean, women compete only for a short time in their life, which is they compete for the men, but in a passive fashion. And so the sort of teen Mean girls phenomenon gives way to the sort of young and middle-aged ladies more conviviality because their competition, you know, evolutionarily speaking, a woman's competition, would as a whole generally only occur for, you know, six months, maybe a year, maybe on the outside 18 months from their late teens, right, to pick men. And it generally is passive. So there could be some viciousness and so on. But, you know, the sort of the famous mean girls phenomenon of teen queens and mean girls and so on. Well, that occurs because that's when the women are in the height of their competitive streak, their competitive moments. But men, we compete our whole lives. We compete our whole lives long.
[8:30] And so competition means you have to be comfortable with people being upset. I mean, that's just basic facts, right? To win, you have to be entirely comfortable. In fact, you have to even kind of enjoy other people being upset. You know, this sort of famous meme of, you know, drink the cup of your enemy's tears, that kind of stuff. That's sort of a male phenomenon. So for men, if you're upset, because this is what we're always told, get over it, deal with it, compete better, do better, stop being a wimp, dry your tears, walk it off, you know. But for women, if people are upset, it's something that needs to be appeased and dealt with. You can't live with it. You can't enjoy it. Maybe even, you know, I win, you lose. I'm good, you suck. You know, that kind of stuff, right?
[9:14] And so it's more likely then that she would have taken that approach. Again, I don't know for sure. This is just my sort of thoughts and opinions based upon averages. I don't know anything about the woman in particular, but I can see the sort of trend in a lot of places. Someone's upset. They're really angry. They're really offended. So I need to stop that. And if you can't talk the person out of being offended, then you have to remove the offending person, right? That's just the way this kind of stuff generally works as a whole. And you tend to side with the weaker person you tend to side with the underdog now of course i know it's kind of odd thinking of the mainstream media and then thinking of them as the underdogs but the person who's offended is sort of by definition the underdog or they're talking on behalf of somebody who's being hurt as as an underdog and so on right like he's being mean to x y and z group and they're really upset and they're excluded and weak and marginalized all this kind of stuff right and that's because women tend to side with the underdogs because they have to protect the interests of babies and toddlers against older siblings and adults. So they have to side with the underdog and they have to, Deal with people who are upset, because if people are upset with them too much, then they lose the reproductive advantage of male loyalty, of mate loyalty, and of female sisterhood support, which they need to help raise their kids.
[10:35] So, Susan would have been dealing with a lot of disparate pressures, right? She's got the advertisers, she's got the media breathing down her neck, she's in contact with the government, I'm sure, and I'm talking the senior people. I think most social media companies, they have some interchanges back and forth, but the state, she's got the creators, she's got all of these pressures, and she really can't, and I say this with sympathy, I know this sounds odd because I got nuked off that platform with no warning, which to me at least went kind of against their own terms of service, but she would have been unable to appease everyone. And therefore most people will tend, when they can't appease everyone, they will tend to appease the strongest at the expense of the weakest, but only because the strongest are pretending to be the weakest in women, right? So for men, you tend to win by being strong. For women, you tend to win by claiming that you're upset and weak and other people are upset and weak and this, that, and the other, right?
[11:39] Triggers this sort of protect the toddlers from the siblings thing. So she would have had to spend a lot of time at work. She would have been really stressed. And she's got five kids and she's the CEO and you can't have it all. And I certainly know I've had the great privilege of staying home with my daughter. We only have one child, so we have a very strong bond and strong relationship.
[11:56] But it's very tough to get the kind of time that you need. So maybe there's neglect, maybe it leads to unhappiness, misery, peer bonding, drug addiction, and so on.
[12:05] So that's tough. Workaholism can lead to child neglect.
[12:08] Now, the other thing, of course, is that James Watson, one of the most famous molecular biologists, the guy who, along with Crick, discovered the double helix structure of DNA, well, he was a leading cancer researcher, right? And he was deplatformed for talking about IQ and ethnicity. And I'm not saying that she was primarily responsible for that, but that's sort of the general mindset of deplatform people whose ideas you don't like. And so, woke people, I generally don't have as much sympathy as I would normally for people who have cancer, because when you are deplatforming one of the foremost cancer researchers in the world for the sake of woke ideology, well, one of the consequences is there's going to be fewer effective cures for cancer. Now, of course, I'm not saying that he would have been able to cure Susan's cancer, of course not, but But in general, if you're going to ask or demand or inflict woke orthodoxy on scientific inquiry, you're going to get fewer cures and there's going to be more disease. And that's just a sad, sad fact of reality.
[13:16] And it matters to me because as a cancer survivor, a cure for cancer would be excellent. So people who get deplatformed who could have cured cancer, well, that's pretty significant. But I guess people would rather have ideology than a lifespan. span. So sad but true.
[13:32] Facts are facts. Hope you're doing well. Freedomain.com slash donate.
Support the show, using a variety of donation methods
Support the show
