Speaker 1: 0:17

give it a go yo, yo, yo give it a go, go go have you ever released a uh a a pop music song I've recorded a few little weird noises on soundcloud well, I know you've done like kind of electronic things before, but yeah, have you ever specifically tried to do like a music with like a verses and hooks and like writing lyrics and stuff? No not, not fully. No, Okay, you didn't fall for my trap, cause if you said yes, I was going to make you divulge it or sing it, or something.

Speaker 2: 0:53

No, no, I played like weird little. I mean it doesn't have all those things, but it has. You know, it makes it's like a song and it has like parts, you know where it's like a song and it has parts.

Speaker 1: 1:04

Yeah, but it doesn't have like full verse.

Speaker 2: 1:07

Chorus hooks no, no, no, it doesn't, oh okay.

Speaker 1: 1:10

It's just like how did you, how did you decide what different parts to put in your like a song?

Speaker 2: 1:15

Well, they're kind of like mute sound.

Speaker 2: 1:17

They're kind of like mute sounds they're, so you do sound they're like sound poems so I took I play like my violin and like other like percussive sort of instruments and like I have like little instruments like a clarinet and like other things in my house and I'll like play those and then I'll I'll put like um recordings of like people, like famous people talking in interviews underneath, and then have it be like the music and then the or the sound. I don't say it called music because it sort of sounds.

Speaker 2: 1:45

It's basically beat poetry, but with but, yeah, yeah, yeah, like not even poetry, because the, the audio, the, the words are just the interview sounds like from you know, meryl monroe being interviewed or jackson pollock being so like it might be like a, like a standing bass, like right right, but then meryl monroe is, and then it comes down it's like I have a dream that one day all yeah you're like oh, then it comes back. It's like that yeah, exactly that would be a good one.

Speaker 1: 2:15

And then it's like ask not what you can do for your country sure, yeah, I would just leave it.

Speaker 2: 2:20

I would just leave it as martin luther king the whole time oh, just, you just keep coming back, you're not?

Speaker 1: 2:24

I don't usually have it switch up.

Speaker 2: 2:26

I usually don't mash up, I just pick one thing because it's like you know, it'd be good if people listen to the martin luther king speech but then if there was some music around it, I'm neo, I know kung fu.

Speaker 3: 2:37

Now, this is matrix oh, that would be a good one well, the matrix would be good, hey, that'd be good.

Speaker 2: 2:43

You're, you're coming up with good ones.

Speaker 3: 2:45

Yeah, or the do you ever hear the speech at the?

Speaker 2: 2:49

end of uh modern. Or the speech at the end of great dictator charlie chaplin's great dictator. Just check it out no it's at the end of a great dictator. He does this speech and it's really riveting and like it gives you goosebumps and like I think he does this speech and it's really riveting and like it gives you goosebumps and like I think it, it makes me tear up. It's like so powerful.

Speaker 1: 3:06

Yeah, you know my hot take on Chaplin should have stayed silent, silent movie star should have stayed silent.

Speaker 2: 3:13

But when you hear this speech, you you're, you'll turn around, you'll change your opinion.

Speaker 1: 3:17

I'll turn around and I'll be like I'm not looking at this anymore.

Speaker 2: 3:19

No, you'll, you'll you'll be like. I'll be like good job, your perspective.

Speaker 3: 3:31

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be an emperor. That's not my business. I don't want to rule or conquer anyone. I should like to help everyone if possible. Jew, gentile, black, man, white we all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each other's happiness, not by each other's misery. We don't want to hate and despise one another. In this world there's room for everyone and the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.

Speaker 3: 4:04

Greed has poisoned men's souls, has barricaded the world with hate, has goose-stepped us into misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. The aeroplane and the radio have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in men, cries out for universal brotherhood, for the unity of us all.

Speaker 3: 4:46

Even now, my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. For those who can hear me, I say do not despair. The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass and dictators die and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Speaker 3: 5:20

Soldiers, don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think and what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men with machine minds and machine hearts. You are not machines, you are not cattle. You are not cattle, you are men. You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate Only the unloved. Hate the unloved and the unnatural. Soldiers, don't fight for slavery, fight for liberty.

Speaker 3: 5:54

In the 17th chapter of St Lucas it's written the kingdom of God is within man, not one man, nor a group of men, but in all men, in you. You, the people, have the power, the power to create machines, the power to create happiness. You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then, in the name of democracy, let us use that power. Let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men a chance to work, that will give youth a future and old age a security.

Speaker 3: 6:26

By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power, but they lie. They do not fulfill that promise. They never will. Dictators free themselves, but they enslave the people. Now, let us fight to fulfill that promise. Let us fight to free the world, to do away with national barriers, to do away with greed, with hate and intolerance. Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress Will lead to all men's happiness. Soldiers, in the name of democracy, let us all unite.

Speaker 2: 7:39

I'm out, I've got a solution, scott.

Speaker 1: 7:49

I would like to hear it, please now, as per usual. As per usual. As per usual.

Speaker 2: 7:59

As per usual. Okay, so I've been interacting with academic journals recently, interacting with everything in the past. Like I'm reading them like I got, like I got, a journal article admitted, submitted yes, yeah, we talked about that last week, so I've been learning more about.

Speaker 2: 8:18

Yeah, thanks, I've been learning more and more about, like, the world of academic journals and some of the sort of problems with them. I think one of the things that I've come up against that's a problem with them is what I will call the problem of ambitiousness the problem of ambitiousness, ambitiousness okay so if say, if you propose an idea, that's well, here's the solution. The solution is someone should start a new academic journal, because anyone can start a journal. It's not like regulated.

Speaker 2: 8:55

Right so someone should start a new journal, and the journal's premise should be ambitious ideas.

Speaker 1: 9:04

As opposed to what. So this is what all of the journals are not ambitious what would you classify their ideas as, like sometimes ambitious, or just unambitious, or just like a smattering how, what's that? What's it? Yeah, so how would you differentiate?

Speaker 2: 9:17

so basically if if you came out and said something really new and kind of, you know, just a new idea, yeah that is not called. People don't say that idea is too new, we won't let it into our journal.

Speaker 2: 9:33

What they say is that idea is too ambitious and that's and that word ambitious is what they label ideas that are too new. So they say that that's what they say and the presumption there is you would never be able to defend that adequately and so no paper would reasonably publish it because it's too ambitious. But I think what that really means when people say that is our journals all.

Speaker 2: 10:09

Pretty much this is all journals, as far as I can tell, have the same thing yeah our journals have a prestige risk to publishing ideas that turn out to be wrong and so we will not publish anything that is that could be wrong, even though it may be worthwhile in research to have what I would call big swings, big swings You're really trying to hit the ball all the way out to the outfield right, big swings.

Speaker 1: 10:42

Right, ambitious, ambitious.

Speaker 2: 10:43

Ambitious ideas that are very new and, yeah, they're not well-founded and they cannot be defended in one 20-page paper in a journal?

Speaker 1: 10:52

Is this like how the National Enquirer features ambitious journalism like stories that the other newspapers are too scared to yeah right About Bigfoot's wedding or Batboy returning? Yeah, exactly Batboy. Now I understand.

Speaker 2: 11:08

So this is going to be the national inquirer version. We could call it the national inquiry. No, I don't think so. I think that could be the name of the journal, what you want to call it the national inquiry credibility.

Speaker 1: 11:20

You would have to call it the the credibility credibility journal.

Speaker 2: 11:24

Okay of ambitious ideas. There you go the credibility journal of ambitious idea, the highly prestigious credibility journal of ambitious ideas. There you go the credibility journal of ambitious idea, the highly prestigious credibility journal of ambitious ideas. I think no one would miss mistake what that was going on there then we could just call it trust us, we're ambitious. Dot com, dot com even though it's a printed journal. We just yeah. Well, that dot com is a website prestige?

Speaker 1: 11:48

well, it's a website, but you have to go to the dot com dot org to get because we couldn't get the com.

Speaker 2: 11:52

Well, of course org is better. Yeah, so, yeah. So I think that would be an interesting journal to look at.

Speaker 1: 12:00

So anyone can start a scientific journal? Obviously it's not just that simple. If I start a scientific journal, no one is going to care. So no one is going to care. So we have to get, you have to get like good people to be contributors.

Speaker 2: 12:15

Right, that's the yeah, I think. I think what we'd have to get is like good contributors, but also like good people supporting it and like sort of backing it, and I think you could do that by finding like old professors george soros, of course, would back.

Speaker 1: 12:27

He backs everything, okay. So I don't know about that.

Speaker 2: 12:31

But well, george? Yeah, I don't think so. George Soros probably wouldn't have anything to do with this.

Speaker 1: 12:34

No, of course not.

Speaker 2: 12:35

You know somebody who was like hey, research should be be more ambitious than it is. I've been in academia for 30 years and I think research could be a lot more ambitious than it is. So let's start a journal where it's a journal of big swings. It's a journal where people do ambitious ideas and actually if you open the pages of the journal and you're not saying this is really ambitious, it lacks credibility. You're not able to prove this. Then the paper would be failing right. So actually, the success of this paper, of the papers in this journal, would be too ambitious. Can't prove it, can't you know? Can only start a conversation, adam you just said the name.

Speaker 1: 13:19

You said this is a place where they're taking big swings right. A journal.

Speaker 3: 13:22

Right, right, okay, so we got it's the big swingers journal. Okay.

Speaker 1: 13:31

So we're're gonna have the big swingers journal, okay yeah, and then you know that doesn't have any kind of connotations.

Speaker 2: 13:34

What is that?

Speaker 1: 13:34

other connotations? I'm sure there's. I'm just gonna quickly google big swingers and see if anything comes up, oh my god, oh no, this big swingers oh well you want to see, you want a local journal, so check out big swingers in my area, just make sure in my area.

Speaker 2: 13:50

Big swingers in my area. Oh, now this is looking more interesting. This is okay. Oh no, especially in San Francisco. There's lots of this here, so you know who could start this journal is solutions for the multiverse itself.

Speaker 1: 14:05

I saw ourself academic with all of our extra time and money.

Speaker 2: 14:08

This could be the solutions. This us ourselves academic with all of our extra time and money.

Speaker 2: 14:15

This could be the solutions academic where we would put it, because the whole idea is new ideas. You know kind of a big, kind of big swings. You know ambitious ideas. I think part of the reason why ambitious ideas are not accepted in sort of standard journals is because, um, like I said, there's a prestige risk because there's sort of negative fallout if the articles you posted then turn out, the ideas, turn out to be like totally wrong, like you know you might say maybe this is going to work and then someone finds some other you know evidence that shows that really it's not right.

Speaker 2: 14:45

So then that looks bad.

Speaker 1: 14:46

At the beginning it looks like that's wrong. Let's put bleach into our. Let's inject bleach and ivermectin right exactly. And then that looks bad. It looks like that's wrong. Let's put bleach into our. Let's inject bleach in ivermectin Right, exactly.

Speaker 2: 14:52

And then that gets published, and then you know so it would create, it would create controversy, which is interesting, but it wouldn't create like long-term citations over the long haul Right. So there's that kind of reputational risk. But I think if you came out and explicitly said this is our goal and made an explanation for why this is a worthwhile thing to do, and maybe even published that article in a less ambitious place, A lower ambition.

Speaker 2: 15:24

Yeah, maybe in a prestigious journal you say you prove that research is better if there are outlets for wild sort of bigger swings. And then if you can demonstrate that in a very, very kind of cool, reasonable sense that people you know agree with that, then why not have a journal that that can prove that?

Speaker 1: 15:41

So maybe the first step is to demonstrate that research ought to have this kind of, so a collection of like smart people with with new idea. Like what'd you say ideas, what kind of ideas?

Speaker 2: 15:55

yeah, yeah, absolutely. I mean they're usually they're, they're academic papers. They can be in various fields oh, ambitious.

Speaker 1: 16:01

Sorry, I was just blanking on ambitious ideas. Yeah, what? If so? You keep saying journal. My old brain is like that's a printed book that you hold in your hand.

Speaker 2: 16:11

That's not what a journal is no, now it's an online is it a?

Speaker 1: 16:15

website is it a? Is it a?

Speaker 2: 16:17

thing on a website. Yeah, it's like a, it's like a pay, like usually. It's like a. Usually it's like a payment, a payment gateway to get to the access to the article, but the article. You can read the abstract, but then you have to pay to get the actual article and then once you're.

Speaker 2: 16:29

But then you can like search, but usually through your, so usually you're a professor or or a student at a university. The universities pay for subscriptions to all these journals and then those people who are inside those universities, like I as a professor, can just go and see almost any journal article because my library gives me access to it?

Speaker 1: 16:50

would it be always written or would it be like audio stuff? Interpretive dances you think maybe well, it could be interpretive dances. I think this is just depends on the idea. I guess it's just paper papers have.

Speaker 2: 17:00

You know standard structure, abstract introduction. You know lit review, main argument. You know sort of standard, sort of this is how you write a paper. You sort of stand on the shoulders of giants.

Speaker 1: 17:10

I'm getting the gifs yeah, yeah, yeah yeah what the uh, what a journal looks like. Because I mean, yeah, my earliest incarnation of a journal is, you know, opening up a journal and you write, dear, dear journal, and then you write about your day, and then did you ever do that, did you? Ever try journaling like that as a kid did, did you have a?

Speaker 2: 17:30

book where you would do it daily. I think I tried because people said, like you know, this is good. But then I think I got more into just like writing in general, rather than writing about my life or like my day.

Speaker 1: 17:45

I did a journal for a while the same thing, like I just was bad at keeping a daily habit of anything I still am. But like, yeah, I tried writing about my day for a while the same thing Like I just was bad at keeping a daily habit of anything I still am. But like, yeah, I tried writing about my day for a while and I was like this seems like I'm spending too much time doing something I don't want to do, so I stopped doing it.

Speaker 2: 18:00

Yeah, also, like what are you? I don't know what are you going to get out of reflecting on you, like age eight, right it might make you more empathetic, like write about what other people felt and thought. That's probably a good idea actually, but um yeah as a young as a young testosterone teenage boy, I wasn't like thinking what do other people think and what are their feelings?

Speaker 2: 18:26

you know I was thinking more about what I was concerned about, you know yeah okay, well I decided just because we were talking about journals it made me wonder about yeah, what your journaling history looked like now, have you seen this new thing that people are into called second, a second brain, or it's? Also second brain it's also called settle castelkasten, the German word oh.

Speaker 3: 18:48

I have not. People use a piece of software called Obsidian.

Speaker 2: 18:53

It's becoming quite popular. People use this software called Obsidian, Okay, and inside of it you write these like notes and then you can like. It's almost like Wikipedia. Inside the Obsidian you can reference other notes and other topics through hyperlinks and then you can build this like network that you can visualize of like all your different notes and how they relate to other topics and other things.

Speaker 2: 19:17

So then you can see, like your, your relationship of topics. So you can see all these topics and you can hover on one and it links to all the notes that have to do with that topic. And so you can like grab all the notes that have to do with a single topic and read through them. It just gives you this ability to like have a huge amount of information all kind of interrelated to each other visually and like kind of through hyperlinks.

Speaker 1: 19:39

It's pretty interesting yeah, it's a way to like learn things. How would you? You're using a screen to do this, or yeah, yeah it's like on your it's software okay, yeah, interesting it's pretty cool.

Speaker 2: 19:49

People are getting into it, if anyone wants to get into it. You just look at Obsidian and Settlecast and or Second Brain. It comes, I think, a bit from like bullet journaling, but now it's taken on a whole nother life.

Speaker 1: 20:01

Well, it sounds like a digital version of like making a big wall thing where you put all the red string between all the connected things.

Speaker 2: 20:09

That's what it is.

Speaker 1: 20:10

Yeah, I mean you're yeah, but it doesn't look like you're a crazy sociopath or a uh right super intense detective those are the two options. That's right. You're either a serial killer or a serial killer catcher when you do those yeah, this is settle custom.

Speaker 2: 20:25

yeah, it's a little custom, or god, what do they call it? Second brain, anyways, that's kind of a cool journaling thing that people are getting into. Okay, but yeah, academic journals.

Speaker 1: 20:38

So what would we call our big idea journal? I mean, usually it's not a good name, yeah, not a great name but I think you know, usually people do just very standard names.

Speaker 2: 20:48

You know the names are just like you know something, something quarterly or, like you know, journal of you know.

Speaker 3: 20:59

So it could be called. It could be called the journal of ambitious inquiry.

Speaker 2: 21:03

That's actually not that bad. The journal of ambitious inquiry would be pretty cool because then it would tell you right the name, like hey, if you open, if you open this up and you're like this is too ambitious, that's the whole dang point. We know it's too ambitious.

Speaker 1: 21:16

The j the j, the jai, the jai, yeah, and it could also be it could also be, you know, uh, people could even publish.

Speaker 2: 21:26

I think what would be really neat is people could turn in hypotheses, so no data, no evidence, nothing, and it could be really short. It could just be like here's a hypothesis, this is happening because of this, this and this, who knows, but it's interesting. I think it's interesting and you take it for what it is. You don't okay. This is truth no you?

Speaker 2: 21:49

no, absolutely not. What you take it for is this is an interesting possibility and you start to think about that, and if you had a whole journal of them, it'd be interesting to read, like the 25 hypotheses that were submitted this month you know, interesting yeah yeah, and then you could cite that hypothesis and start adding piecemeal evidence to it or against it.

Speaker 2: 22:14

So you, someone, could put in a hypothesis and then somebody else could be like I could write like a little paper, like you know, they could just write like a two-page response and say this hypothesis was really interesting. Here's some problems I see with it. Boom, boom, boom, boom. And then somebody else could read that and read the hypothesis and be like no, they're forgetting this. And you could actually kind of piece together like a full thought about that hypothesis which, if, if, if you just left it to one person to have to come up with a very ambitious hypothesis and then build up the entire defense of that hypothesis, it just would never happen and it wouldn't be publishable because it's too ambitious and you miss the back and forth.

Speaker 1: 22:54

That you know the socratic method, you know you. You miss the input from others. That you're the the things you don't know. That you don't know, you know your blind spots. That's right.

Speaker 2: 23:05

So if you could create this cool yeah, and people could submit whole articles with evidence and you, you know defenses of what they're saying. But but it should be really a big swing. Like, like I have tons of these ideas and I've, I've, I've told them to. Like, I have these various advisors that I talked to about trying to get papers published. And you know, I say to them, like what if I tried to say this? And they're like unpublishable. And I'm always like what if I tried to say this? And they're like unpublishable. And I'm always like why? And they say too ambitious. I'm like why isn't there just a journal for things that are too ambitious? It's cool, why not? Like it's not going to hurt anybody to have like ambitious ideas. Like, should I share an example? Sure, okay. So one example I have is so I think it's plausible to argue again, it's ambitious. And it'sauer and Nietzsche, basically the foundations of what became what has now become postmodernist, like basically what everyone thinks today in the West is based on these three guys. You could argue, I think, quite strongly, that all of their core ideas and attitudes and outlooks are coming almost completely from Asian philosophy. And like Buddhism and Hinduism, I think you can argue that quite strongly.

Speaker 2: 24:42

Actually, there's some evidence that Hume was like in a monastery with a guy who was one of the only guys who went to Tibet and he tried to convert the Tibetans to Catholicism when he was there for 25 years but actually they converted him to Tibetan Buddhism. So he came back as a Tibetan Buddhist and Hume was just writing. He was just hanging out in this like monastery to write and he just was having lunch every day with this guy. There was 120 guys in this room in this monastery. They all ate together two, three meals a day. Hume was there. One of the guys was like from was had been in tibet for 25 years. There's no way that they didn't talk again and again and again over meals and make a relationship and learn about tibetan buddhism. And then, lo and behold hume's.

Speaker 2: 25:28

All of his theories are just like almost exactly buddhism. Like they're just like you know. And the same thing with Nietzsche and the Upanishads. Like when you read Nietzsche's book called Thus Spake Zarathustra, it's pretty much just sounds like the Vedas, like it sounds like the way the Vedas and the Upanishads and sort of some of the Buddhist texts sound profound, like it's this sort of oriental philosopher walking around and talking to people and it's just like it's just.

Speaker 2: 25:59

And then his ideas beyond good and evil, that's just buddhist morality, that's just buddhist morality. Is that good and evil? Are these? You know, this kind of false dichotomy? They don't really exist, they're kind of, you know. I mean they do exist, but they exist in this sort of interdependent way with other with other, and so there's no absolute good and evil the way Western sort of Christian or kind of absolutist modern ideas about good and evil. But Nietzsche comes along and is like we're beyond good and evil, good and evil are just these interdependent concepts and that becomes moral pluralism, moral relativism, which is our modern idea. So anyways, that's like an idea that basically all of western philosophy, western modern philosophy, contemporary philosophy, has all just been based on the upanishads, the vedas and the buddhist texts. But if you say that people are like you're crazy, that can't, that's way too ambitious to say so you got to put it in a new journal.

Speaker 1: 26:55

That's why we gotta do a new journal, then it's gotta, then you go. Well, it's cited now and they go well then that's less crazy, I guess yeah.

Speaker 2: 27:04

Well, it's cited as a crazy thing. Like this is a crazy idea. That's fine, it's fine, there's nothing wrong with people having crazy ideas. So anyways, I think it might be different for different journals. Like, I don't think you need a big swings journal for science. Really. Well, maybe you do, maybe you do. I think sometimes things are almost like you need whistleblowers. You almost need like whistleblowers to say this experiment is not getting done, no one has done this experiment, but it would decide the solution. You know what I mean. Like if you wanted to solve this question in science, you would do this experiment. Why is no one doing it? That's almost like a whistleblower right and right now.

Speaker 2: 27:42

If you, there's no way to publish that, there's no place to put that sort of like hey, no one's doing this experiment, someone do it and it would prove yes or no on this question. So, for example, right now everyone knows this in academia If you do experiments and find out that your hypothesis is wrong, it's very hard to get that paper published. But if you find out that your hypothesis is either right or that there's some evidence that maybe it's right, that's publishable. But that's not good science, that's really bad science. Okay, right, good science would be. I tried it. It didn't work. That's really important for other people to know, right. And so this bias towards correct you know right answers to only be published. First of all, it's not good science science. Second of all, it actually leads to people fudging their data a lot. This has been shown that actually people will do what's called p hacking, which is changing things around and sort of changing their you know, sort of reinterpreting their data, massaging it into until that doesn't sound good.

Speaker 2: 28:50

But this is what the incentive leads to if you say you know you can only do correct ideas and in the humanities, it's the same thing you to. If you say you know you can only do correct ideas and in the humanities it's the same thing. If you can only publish ideas in philosophy or literature or in the humanities that the peer reviewers believe are correct not just that are plausible then you're going to get to the same thing. So this is a big problem. In academia. People know about this problem.

Speaker 2: 29:13

This is not like I'm just coming up with this. It's not like I invented this problem. This is a major problem. It's called peer review crisis or peer review problem or the problem with journals. Right now you could talk about it all different ways, but so it's not like just crazy, I'm not making up this problem. What if there was a journal where people could have ambitious ideas? And that would be the sort of statement of that journal where people could have ambitious ideas, and that would be the sort of stand of that journal and we talked about some of the reasons why that wouldn't exist, is because of the way prestige works in academic environments.

Speaker 2: 29:44

But a lot of the ideas today that everyone thinks are common knowledge and are well-proven a hundred years ago were wild, totally ambitious ideas. Academics will never cite anything that isn't published in another journal, which means if somebody does have a big swing and then they publish it in like a blog post and it is really important. It will still never be cited in the academic literature and if you do, your paper will be rejected because they'll say you're citing something that isn't peer reviewed.

Speaker 1: 30:16

So, there's this disjunction where, if you do want to- reference like people know the rules and they know how to get into journals, so they I mean easily.

Speaker 2: 30:24

You're talking to someone who knows the rules and knows how to do it. I do it, I do it you know.

Speaker 1: 30:29

So it's not what's the lament here. Wait, what's the lament? It's the lament that you can't get the thing into the journal. It's the lament that you can't get the thing into the journal.

Speaker 2: 30:36

It's the lament that you don't get the stamp of-. I can get things into the journal, Scott. I know how to do it. It's not personal, Adam stick with me?

Speaker 1: 30:40

What did you just say? You were just saying someone has an idea, they can't get it in because they put it in a blog post. They can't cite it. Why is?

Speaker 2: 30:46

that bad. Who cares? So say, somebody has a really revolutionary idea right. Okay, cool, and they can't get it into a journal.

Speaker 1: 30:53

Cold fusion.

Speaker 2: 30:54

I have cold fusion.

Speaker 1: 30:55

I put it in my Medium post Well, cold fusion you can make money with. But what if you come up with, for example, a way to what if I come up with a completely useless idea? That's new, okay.

Speaker 2: 31:04

Well, what if you come up with a definition of slavery that really improves people's understanding of slavery in the modern times?

Speaker 1: 31:12

Okay, right.

Speaker 2: 31:15

Sounds in the modern times. Okay, right, sounds like something that I could have adopted, but it runs completely. But it runs completely contrary to the existing theory of slavery, which I'm sure, there's a whole literature on the meaning of slavery and da-da-da-da. But let's say someone comes up with a completely revolutionary idea about this and totally reverses everything. Right, they say, instead of thinking about them like slaves you way. Whatever, I don't know you know, sure, whatever, and then and then that, but that's now unpublishable because it's a totally ambitious idea, but say they do write it as a blog post.

Speaker 1: 31:44

It's unpublishable. Where in pure of your?

Speaker 2: 31:45

journals. Okay, so you can put it somewhere else. Yeah, okay, so now let's lay that out. So the person then writes a great medium post. It's beautiful and written really well and really plausible and good. But now because I told there's no way for academic journal people to then cite that blog post. It's not allowed. It's not allowed.

Speaker 1: 32:04

Well, thank you guys for tuning in.

Speaker 2: 32:06

All right, everybody take care, Keep it concrete-y Keep it concrete-y Okay bye, bye, okay, bye, thank you.