Video summary
In this episode marking 1,100 installments of his podcast, the host reflects on three distinct modes of action: discipline, motivation, and obsession. He defines discipline as doing something despite a lack of desire (friction accepted), relying heavily on willpower and routine; motivation involves reduced friction driven by emotion or novelty but is unreliable because it fluctuates with mood. In contrast, he describes obsession as "friction inverted," where the work feels unavoidable and pulls one forward without negotiation. He argues that while discipline burns energy and motivation evaporates when tired, positive obsessions provide a permanent, free fuel source for output. However, since obsession cannot be summoned on command and is non-renewable once it fades, he advises listeners to surrender fully to these intense states rather than trying to balance or suppress them immediately. He illustrates this with his own history of becoming obsessed with bodybuilding at 18, which eventually fossilized into a lifelong identity as an old obsession cools down into what appears to be mere discipline later in life. The discussion then shifts to the paradox of self-awareness and Shakespeare's line from *Hamlet*, "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all." The host interprets this not as an attack on morality, but as a warning that our ability to simulate future outcomes—our intelligence and reflection—inhibits action. While animals act when thresholds are crossed, humans overthink potential failures like embarrassment or rejection until they feel paralyzed by the unknown. This leads to "omission errors," where people avoid taking risks because their minds generate more negative scenarios than reality can handle, whereas commission errors (mistakes made) have obvious costs that omission errors lack. To combat this paralysis, he references Tony Robbins' *Awaken the Giant Within*, suggesting one must consciously front-load the pain of inaction to overcome the fear of failure and realize that a life examined too deeply without movement is not worth living. Further lessons focus on complexity versus stress; while human systems are designed to handle intense challenges, they fail under complication caused by multiple simultaneous issues like family illness or work deadlines. The solution is simplification rather than increased effort. Additionally, he emphasizes seeking answers in silence and avoiding the trap of mourning a life one can still live, noting that many people remain resentful despite having the skills to succeed because their overthinking prevents them from acting on opportunities. He also touches upon social dynamics, suggesting that surrounding oneself with enthusiastic people who focus on what they like rather than dislike is crucial for maintaining energy and avoiding grumpiness. A sponsorship segment highlights Shopify's role in simplifying e-commerce logistics so entrepreneurs can focus on product creation, followed by a promotion of Timeline's Mitopure to support mitochondrial health as recovery needs change with age. The host explores several sociological observations regarding gender differences and relationships. He cites studies indicating that men are more prone to wishful thinking about female friends' attraction than women realize, while also noting that both sexes judge male infidelity harsher than female infidelity today. Contrary to stereotypes, research suggests romantic relationships matter significantly more to men, who strive harder for them but suffer longer after breakups because they often lack the broad social support networks women typically possess outside of marriage. He also notes a disparity in sexual frequency within marriages, where couples default to the lower rate desired by wives, meaning men sacrifice on average 50% of their desire. Finally, he critiques the concept of polyamory as being accessible only to a small percentage with exceptional emotional intelligence, warning that many others mistake spiritual bypassing for genuine capability. The episode concludes with a philosophical inquiry into the nature of the "true self." The host challenges the superstition that beneath our habits lies an authentic core goodness, arguing instead that authenticity is often projected based on one's own moral compass rather than discovered within another person. He presents a study where liberals and conservatives viewed conflicting versions of a man named Mark differently; each group identified whichever version aligned with their values as his "true self," suggesting that what we call essence is actually a reflection of our biases. This belief in hidden goodness allows for forgiveness but also blinds us to cruelty, treating malice on the opposing side as inherent while dismissing it as a mask on allies. Ultimately, he posits that there may be no single true self at all; rather, we invent this concept to make love sustainable and mistakes forgivable, even if doing so risks underestimating genuine evil or our own flaws.
Read the full video transcript
Hello everybody. Welcome back to the
show. It is episode 1,100
and that is a number that I did not
think that I would get to. I don't think
I've done 1,100 of anything apart from
these podcasts. As is tradition, I put
together a list of lessons that I've
learned from the show and from writing
and reading and life over the last 6
months since the last one of these that
I did and I'm going to go through them
today. So, let's get into it.
First up,
I started thinking about obsession and
why no one understands obsession. I
think literally no one understands why
obsession is the way it is. Discipline,
motivation, and obsession are three
words that get thrown around quite a lot
and I think most people misunderstand
all three and because of that, they miss
some very big lessons about how life
actually works. So, here's the simplest
way to separate those three out.
Discipline is I will make myself do the
thing.
Motivation is I want to do the thing and
obsession is I can't not do the thing.
So, all three produce the same outcome,
right? The thing gets done.
But, the internal cost couldn't be more
different and the difference is
primarily around friction. So,
discipline is friction accepted. You
don't want to do the thing, but you do
it anyway. You lean on effort,
willpower, and routines, and
environments, and design, and past
patterns, and habits, and drag yourself
over the line
and it's mostly under your control,
which is why it's so reliable. If you're
willing to pay the price, discipline
will always show up. But, the problem is
that the price is high. Discipline is
really expensive. Burns energy, creates
resistance, feels heavy. It works,
but it's a grind. And motivation is
friction reduced. You want to do the
thing, so the resistance drops. You
still need effort, but you need less of
it. Motivation comes from desire,
circumstance, and novelty, and identity,
and community, and emotion. You can try
to kind of manufacture it with goal
setting, or visualization, community
support, and celebrating micro wins, or
me and Alex Hormozi compilation videos,
and heavy metal music.
Sometimes it works, but sometimes it
doesn't, right? Motivation is unreliable
because it's kind of downstream of how
you feel. When your mood dips,
motivation just [ __ ] evaporates. It's
useful fuel,
but you can't build a life that depends
on it. And obsession
is friction inverted.
So, remember, we've got discipline,
friction accepted, motivation, friction
reduced, and obsession is friction
inverted. You don't need to make
yourself do the thing.
You can't avoid doing it. You don't
push. Instead, the work sort of
pulls you toward it. It invades your
thoughts. It follows you into the
shower, into the car, into bed. And when
you're tired, it doesn't disappear.
Obsession is kind of like motivation's
poltergeist big brother,
who just never stops haunting you.
And because you can't switch it off,
that's why obsessions with negative
pursuits, like politics, or porn, or a
toxic ex, can be so destructive. The
reason that obsession is so powerful is
simple.
It's basically permanent, free
motivation and discipline. You get
output without negotiation, and you get
action without having to tap into any
willpower. To the uh
fuel source equivalent of hitting a
superstar in Super Mario. So, this is
why obsession produces such
disproportionate results in a short
window of time. And people
look at the output, and assume
superhuman discipline,
when in reality, if you're obsessed, the
work felt
almost unavoidable. People admire
discipline, and envy motivation,
but very few understand obsession. And
because they don't understand it,
they waste it. So, here I think is the
part that people miss.
Obsession isn't a personality trait.
It's a state, which means that it can't
be summoned on command. You can't decide
to be obsessed. It appears when
curiosity, identity, reward, and meaning
sort of all accidentally aligned some
weird celestial bodies. And when it
appears, it doesn't last forever, which
is a tragedy. Obsession is a
non-renewable fuel source. When it
leaves,
you don't get it back on demand.
In future, it will take you so much more
effort to get even partially close to
this obsessive level of output. So, use
your free fuel while it's available,
which is why the correct response to a
positive obsession
isn't to suppress it, or balance it, or
apologize for it.
It's to surrender to it. So, if you're
currently obsessed with something
positive, my advice is to kind of let it
crawl inside of you and wear your skin
and stare out through your eyes. Like,
if you can't stop watching lifting
videos and spend all of your time
thinking about diet and training, now
isn't the time to be balanced in the
gym. Or if your sleep is wrecked because
you're ruminating about a business idea
that you can't wait to launch and then
you this isn't the time for you to seek
calm. You're allowed to go full-on demon
founder mode with it.
Serial obsessives, as far as I can see,
move from intense project to intense
project, making huge progress while the
tide is with them, so that when the
obsession inevitably fades, something
important's happened already.
The rails for their future behavior get
laid down. So,
by the time that your obsession wanes,
you have built the patterns and
routines, and skills, and habits that
allow you to keep going
when the fuel is no longer free.
So, I I started going to the gym when I
was 18 because I was obsessed with
gaining muscle, and I researched protein
shake formulations, and dreamt of going
to Gold's Gym in LA, and skipped nights
out partying to stay in my bedroom and
read the misc forums on
bodybuilding.com.
The most autistic excuse for not going
on a night out ever. Nearly 20 years
later,
I'm still training, and
not really even because I'm that
disciplined or motivated now, but just
because an old obsession of mine
fossilized into my identity. And being
honest, this is true for my meditation
habit, and my research for podcast
guests, and the productivity systems
that I've got, and my desire to build
businesses.
What once obsessed me
has now just simply become me.
What often looks like discipline today
is just the
echo of someone's past obsessions.
This is
a quiet reframe that people basically
never say out loud.
Discipline sometimes isn't the starting
point. It's just the residue.
So, what It's what remains when
obsession cools down and settles into
routine.
So, if you're lucky enough to be
obsessed right now,
I think you can stop trying to moderate
it into something respectable. You can
stop worrying about whether it looks
excessive, and you can stop
pretending whether you're supposed to
feel balanced.
Balance is what you can enjoy later, and
obsession is what you get to embrace
now.
Basically,
as far as I can see it, most people
never get an obsession worth anything.
So, if you have one,
don't waste it.
And the more that I think about this and
I look at a lot of the guys that I've
met who appear to be super disciplined
and they're absolutely crushing it in
life and they've got they their systems
are so dialed and you look from the
outside and think,
"Holy [ __ ] this person is
just a machine." What you don't realize
is that in the past, they had no choice
other than to do that thing. They were
completely obsessed with it, consumed
their life, and now the like the cooled
heart of the dying star that's left
over, the brown dwarf of their previous
huge furnace,
is the life that they still have. The
thing that obsessed them became their
identity. And um
yeah, sure. I said you can't engineer
obsession. I do think that's true. You
can certainly lay the ground the
foundations for it.
But the other thing is,
some people are more obsessive than
others. I
that's something I've been blessed or
cursed with. I have a slightly obsessive
personality. Not wash my hands all the
time obsessive, but struggle to switch
off obsessive. And I'm going to guess if
you're watching this show that you do,
too. What that means is, you're going to
probably, like a
serial monogamist, you're going to
bounce from obsession relationship to
obsession relationship. And if you
dampen it down too much, if you don't
fully allow it to kind of take over your
life, at least to whatever level is
healthy, or even maybe a little bit
beyond the level that's healthy,
you're going to miss out on free
motivation and free discipline. And then
at the end of it, because this isn't
going to last forever, right? Obsession
isn't going to It's a non-renewable fuel
source. You can't bring it back when you
want to.
Once that's cooled off, if you haven't
allowed it to kind of take over your
life fully, what you end up with is a
world where
you fought against
the thing you wanted to do
to stop it from being so all
encompassing or like unrespectable. And
then once it's finished and you don't
have it anymore, you didn't gain the
momentum and the identity that allowed
you to kind of flow through it afterward
so that it then became the the way that
you show up. I'm just a guy that goes to
the gym. I'm just a guy that build
businesses. I'm just a guy that meditate
or whatever.
>> [snorts]
>> So yeah, I think uh
that's uh I I just I I love this I love
this idea. I love the fact that
obsession gets a really bad rap and in
many ways it can be horrible especially
when it's pointed toward politics or
porn or drugs, but if it's pointed
toward something that's actually good,
you should allow it to kind of take over
your life. And then once it's finished,
everyone will look from the outside and
oh my god, dude, how do you how do you
train so much you know you like really
consistent with your training must be
really disciplined must be so motivated
and you're like
not really man, like I just used to be
obsessed with this and now it's
kind of who I am.
All right, next one. The paradox of
self-awareness. So everyone understands
that actions are more important than
words, right? You are what you do, not
what you say you'll do.
And there's this line from Hamlet, thus
conscience does make cowards of us all.
Now I've never read any Shakespeare. I
can barely remember even going through
it in school, but I came across this
line again and did a deep dive on what
it means. Thus conscience does make
cowards of us all. This line comes from
Hamlet and it's
usually misheard as an insult. It's as
if Shakespeare is sort of sneering at
morality saying that um
ethics soften us or thought drains
courage from the body.
I don't think that's what's happening.
Shakespeare isn't attacking goodness.
He's pointing at self-awareness and
naming its cost.
It's in the to be or not to be soliloquy
and Hamlet isn't really weighing life
versus death. He's
circling a more practical question.
Why do humans hesitate to act even when
action would clearly relieve their
suffering? Like why do we endure
situations we don't want? And why do we
tolerate lives that we could in theory
change?
Well, pain isn't the only obstacle.
Imagination is. And by conscience,
Shakespeare means something closer to
consciousness. It's the ability to think
ahead, to judge ourselves, to simulate
futures before they arrive. It's to to
see the consequences coming
and experience them emotionally
in advance.
And unfortunately, that ability cuts
both ways because the very capacity that
makes you reflective and ethical and
intelligent
also makes you hesitant. We imagine
worst-case scenarios so vividly
that we treat them as if they're already
real.
So, courage isn't defeated by fear.
It's defeated by simulation. We rehearse
embarrassment, loss, rejection, and
moral failure in advance. And then our
bodies respond as if those things have
already happened. Your heart rate rises,
your muscles tighten, avoidance feels
sensible, and inaction feels like
safety.
Hamlet describes what follows.
Thought, he says, puzzles the will.
Thought puzzles the will.
Reflection drains us. Not because
thinking is bad, but because it
multiplies potential outcomes faster
than our actions can deal with them.
Right? I think that's so cool. Thinking
isn't bad itself, but it's able to
generate more realities than our actions
can solve. Animals don't suffer this,
right? They just act when a
threshold is crossed. Humans linger. And
by the time that the moment to move
arrives,
we feel as if we've already lived
through its inevitable failure.
So, we wait.
This is the deepest psychological point
that I think Shakespeare is making. And
I'm aware that a guy that basically
didn't read Shakespeare is just
reverse-engineering what I think he
said, but I do think that this is a cool
interpretation, right? Our intelligence
doesn't just protect us.
It also inhibits us.
We learn quickly from mistakes that we
make,
but we almost never feel the cost of
mistakes that we avoid.
The humiliation of speaking and failing
leaves a scar,
but the decades-long erosion of never
speaking
leaves nothing that you can point to,
which explains why people stay in the
wrong job, the wrong relationship, the
wrong version of themselves for years,
not because they don't know better,
but because action demands stepping into
an unrehearsed future.
Hamlet names the real enemy, which is
uncertainty, right? Not pain or effort,
but just
the unknown. Our minds would rather
endure a familiar misery than gamble on
an unfamiliar freedom. Even suffering
becomes tolerable once it's predictable,
but people would rather spend years in
misery than risk a few days of pain.
And this is why modern life, despite
being safer than any previous era, often
feels more paralyzing, right? Because
our nervous systems evolved to avoid
death and lions, and now we use it to
avoid embarrassment and misjudgment and
reputational damage and identity
fracture.
And here's the final uncomfortable
implication Shakespeare leaves hanging.
Self-awareness is not a pure good,
right? Beyond a certain point,
self-awareness actually inhibits agency.
Less reflection can mean more peace.
Less certainty can mean more movement.
Less conscience can sometimes mean more
life.
Courage isn't about thinking clearly.
It's about moving while things are still
unclear.
You know, there's that famous line, "The
unexamined life is not worth living."
But, a life can be deeply examined
and still never lived.
This
paradox of self-awareness, the fact that
the deeper you think sometimes the less
you're able to act, if your mind is able
to generate realities more quickly than
you are able to come up with solutions
or move through them, you kind of have
this weird cost-
benefit imbalance, or maybe like a
cost-profit your your your balance sheet
is offset where the overheads are higher
than the revenue. And this sort of puts
you in a uh
negative equity in terms of your ability
to move forward, and that can freeze you
in place. You don't want to do something
because you think,
"Look at all of the ways it could go
wrong." And
the more ways it could go wrong, the
less ability I'm going to have to act.
And
what if this thing occurs and that thing
occurs? And over time, conscience makes
cowards of us all.
Uh
It's weird because most people
probably need to be more thoughtful.
They need to spend more time, be less
rash, act less impulsively.
But, there is a cohort of people that
are the opposite. And
the people like me and maybe you, too.
I'm not the people who
think more than they should, talk
themselves out of more things than into
them, and actually move more slowly.
They get less done in life due to their
thought than more. Now, they'll make way
fewer mistakes, and that's great. But,
again, the mistake of omission is
different to the mistake of commission.
So,
people make commission errors if they
don't think enough. People make omission
errors if they think too much. Like if
you overthink, decide not to go up and
speak to that girl that's been in the
cafeteria at work for 6 months, she gets
a boyfriend, she would have been the
perfect partner for you, and you decide
to not make the move because you've
talked yourself into and out of it so
many times. Your mind's ability
to show you what could go wrong is
greater than your action's ability to
fix it in reality.
That is an omission error, but we don't
see it in the same way cuz it's not as
obvious.
For instance, I chose to not bring a
number of guests on this podcast in
2024.
And
maybe that's leaked out of me in a
couple of
other vlogs or whatever, but I didn't
make a big song and dance about it. I
basically never spoke about it.
I'm never going to get credit for the
things that I didn't do.
And in the same way, you never pay a
cost for the things that you don't do. I
mean, look, if you leave a person to
bleed out on the side of the street
without calling the ambulance, that's a
kind of omission error, but it's it's
pretty obvious. A much more quiet
omission error is I was scared of
building the business because my mind
told me all of the different ways that
stuff could go wrong.
So, I didn't do it.
And I'll never know the pain of not
fulfilling my dreams,
but I avoided the pain of failure.
And the pains of failure are much more
prevalent in our mind than the pain of
[ __ ] what if this doesn't go well? So,
um there's this great audiobook from
Tony Robbins. It's 30 years old. George
Mac sent it to me. I don't even know how
to find it. It's I'll try and find it
and put it in the links, but it's
basically an hour and a half worksheet,
Awaken the Giant Within. It's an
audiobook, and all he does, it's
basically one long exercise to try and
front-load the pain
as much as possible. Look at what this
situation you're in now has cost you in
the past, look at what it's costing you
right now, and look at what it will cost
you in the future.
And he tries to get you to sit in the
discomfort as much as possible. It's a
horrible, it's awful exercise.
Uh it's like the the mental equivalent
of an ice bath. And then
he gets you to try and do the opposite.
Look at what would have happened in the
past if you'd made the change that you
want to, that you think is right, if
you'd improved this thing, look at what
would be happening now, and what look at
what would happen in the future. And he
tries to sort of get you to use he calls
it the pain pleasure principle.
Motivate your behavior through pain and
pleasure. And uh the type of pain
that you can front-load with look at
what not starting this thing is has cost
you in the past and now and in the
future. You have to be much more
conscious. Like the um commission errors
come naturally to us, but the omission
errors are much more hidden. So, you
need to kind of you need to do an
exercise. You need to consciously bring
omission errors in. Like, [ __ ] like
I've always wanted to be a stand-up
comedian. I've always just wanted to do
I've always I want to do a an open mic.
I just really want to do an open mic.
And you've put it off for
decades. You never did it. You never
closed that loop. And you might hate it.
Here's the other thing. The thing that
you're putting off from doing, you might
absolutely hate.
But at least once you realize whether
you like it or you don't you go up and
speak to the girl in the the the
cafeteria and find out she's got
horrible breath and she's an [ __ ]
There you go. Loop closed. You don't
need to think about it. But the what if
after the fact will kill you, but the
what if before the fact is really hard
to to determine. So, yeah. Uh I think
this conscience does make cowards of us
all. That is my
uh
year seven
uh fourth grade
assessment of Shakespeare. Thank you for
coming to my TED Talk. A quick aside,
most people think that they're
dehydrated because they don't drink
enough water. Turns out water alone
isn't just the problem. It's also what's
missing from it, which is why for the
last 5 years I've started every single
morning with a cold glass of Element in
water. Element is an electrolyte drink
with a science-backed ratio of sodium,
potassium, and magnesium. No sugar, no
coloring, no artificial ingredients,
just the stuff that your body actually
needs to function. This plays a critical
role in reducing your muscle cramps and
your fatigue. It optimizes your brain
health, it regulates your appetite, and
it helps curb cravings. I keep talking
about it because I genuinely feel a
difference when I use it versus when I
don't. And best of all, there's a
no-questions-asked refund policy with an
unlimited duration. So, if you're on the
fence, you can buy it and try it for as
long as you like. And if you don't like
it for any reason, they just give you
your money back. You don't even need to
return the box. That's how confident
they are that you'll love it. And they
offer free shipping in the US. Right
now, you can get a free sample pack of
Element's most popular flavors with your
first purchase by going to the link in
the description below or heading to
drinklmn.com/modernwisdom.
That's drinklmn.com/
modernwisdom.
All right, next one. The dark night of
the soul has a positive side. So,
there's a quote from Rogan, "The worst
thing that's ever happened to you is the
worst thing that's ever happened to
you."
The saddest that you've ever been is the
saddest you've ever been. The hardest
you've ever worked is the hardest that
you've ever worked. Shock, horror. But
tough times aren't fun in the moment for
the same reason that no one ever
believes that they're living through a
golden era. Right? The golden years,
interestingly, only ever seem to exist
in the past because it's only with the
benefit of hindsight that we know all of
our worries were a waste of time. But
when you're going through it,
all of your concerns are still open
loops. They're all things to fear. Then
in retrospect, you see that you had the
ability to handle whatever your problems
were and that there was nothing to be
bothered about. Which suggests that if
you've just come out of the hardest
period of your life,
this seems like a cause for celebration,
right? Because you now have a new
workload level that's been unlocked.
Every new challenge
that you go through
shows you a new territory that you were
scared of but survived.
Each time that you break a new limit,
you now know that you have the capacity
to handle more than you ever did before.
It's kind of like
inverse PTSD, or
workload exposure therapy, and it
teaches you, "Oh,
I've been here before,
and I didn't die.
This is okay."
Joe was making some pithy comment about
like misgendering a
blue-haired barista, and said, "If
that's the worst thing that's ever
happened to someone, the worst thing
that's ever happened to you was the
worst thing that's ever happened to you,
that is a big deal." And it kind of is a
big deal. Like, you could imagine some
person have been created in a lab, and
raised by robots, and they'd never
endured any discomfort. And they go
outside, and they feel the wind on their
skin. I mean, maybe it would be nice,
but let's say it was a strong wind. Or
maybe it was a strong wind with some
leaves in it, and sand, or whatever.
That to them might be absolute agony,
because their level of sensitivity has
been tuned down an awful lot. And I
think the same thing can happen
psychologically, too, to people. Like,
"Wow,
I've not really ever been through much
difficulty. Like, all of this stuff has
been snow plowed out of my way, and then
I've arrived in the world, and [ __ ]
it's harder than I thought it would be."
But the opposite is also true,
which means if you're the sort of person
who regularly seeks out discomfort, or
discomfort seeks you seeks you out, and
you have to push back against it,
each time that you do something that you
couldn't previously believe that you had
in the locker,
this is a new level that you have just
got to, that teaches your body, "I've
been here before, and I didn't die. This
is okay." For instance, I just came back
from this tour in Australia,
and
the opening night was 2 and 1/2 thousand
people in Sydney, which is the second
biggest audience I've ever been in front
of, and the theater is so [ __ ] huge.
It is so scary.
This big sprawl It's like IMAX. Imagine
looking out at an audience of people,
and they're wrapped around you. It's
basically there's no part of my vision
that doesn't have people in it. And it's
even angled like a [ __ ] IMAX screen.
And uh
I'd run the show a bunch of times in
Austin, Texas first, but I hadn't done
it in front of a big audience. There's a
difference between doing it in an
intimate 50-person comedy club in
Austin, Texas, and in front of 2 and 1/2
thousand people, you know, maybe 1/3 of
which have been brought along as friends
or partners of people who love the show.
So, it's a way colder audience with huge
100-ft high ceiling. It's totally
different environment. And uh
I'd never run the show
instead of apart from in this small
comedy club in Austin.
James goes out before me and does an
entire 3-minute segment, which is just
calling different things gay. And I had
to
>> [laughter]
>> As opposed to me going out with warm
audience, he had really sort of put me
on the back foot. All of this stuff was
like, "Fuck. Like, this is so hard." It
just felt really, really difficult.
And that is now the new I thought this
thing was going to destroy me, and I got
through it. Wow. Well, the next time
that I do it, maybe the sound cuts out
halfway through. At that same show, the
sound guy decided to trigger the end of
show sequence halfway through.
It's the first time that's ever happened
to me. In New York, the people who came
to the New York show, I am
the entire venue sound cut out apart
from the on-stage monitors for like 3
minutes.
That's the first time that that's ever
happened to me. And it doesn't matter
whether you're on stage or not, but, you
know, the heaviest weight that you've
ever lifted is the heaviest weight
you've ever lifted. Each time that you
break a new PR, each time that you do
something that's difficult, each time
that you go through a situation which is
tough, yes, it sucks, and obviously you
don't want to lean into accumulating
more of those than is necessary, but
especially if it's something around
your chosen pursuit, if it's around
work, if it's around difficulty, skill
acquisition, stuff like that,
like you know that you have that in the
locker. You know that you can survive
that. And it's cool and I basically
think inverse PTSD workload exposure
therapy is a good way
to
alchemize something that you could see
as really toxic and bad and difficult
and actually realize, "Wow, this is kind
of a gift to my future self. Look at how
hard you can work, look at how much you
can endure, look at how skillfully you
were able to get through this thing and
on the other side of it, that's that's
your new level. You know that you can do
that, too.
All right, six lessons about choosing
your life direction. First one, James
Clear. It doesn't make sense to continue
wanting something if you're not willing
to do what it takes to get it.
If you don't want to live the lifestyle,
then release yourself from the desire.
To crave the result but not the process
is to guarantee disappointment.
I think that is so [ __ ] good. It
doesn't make sense to continue wanting
something if you're not willing to do
what it takes to get it. If you don't
want to live the lifestyle, then release
yourself from the desire. So, a lot of
the time people might think, "I want to
become a touring rock star." Go, "Okay,
you crave the result, touring rock star.
Do you want the process? Do you want the
lifestyle to get there and then the
lifestyle of being there, too? To become
a touring rock star, you're going to
have to play guitar in your bedroom on
your own with no one listening and no
promise of whether or not it's going to
work for like
a decade.
Right? That you're going to have to
learn all of the scales, you're going to
have to learn to write music, you're
going to have to find a bandmates and
learn mastering and recording and
bouncing tracks and [ __ ] you know,
all of this stuff.
Do you want that? Do you want to have
calluses on your fingers? And then the
lifestyle of actually even being there.
You're going to be on the road away from
your friends and your family for 6
months of the year every single year.
You're going to be in a smelly tour bus
for the first half of your career
because you're not going to have made it
unless you break through with like
Gangnam Style or some [ __ ] And then,
okay.
Is that what you want? Is that really
what you want?
Do you want something or and are you
willing to do what it takes to get it?
Cuz if it's not both, it doesn't matter.
Next one, outward complaints aren't a
good gauge of internal suffering.
Just because someone carries it well
doesn't mean it isn't heavy.
Just because someone carries it well
doesn't mean it isn't heavy. This is an
Oliver Burkeman line and I often think
about this, you know, the
the challenge of somebody that looks
competent or
if you're the responsible one in your
friend group, you're the one that
is listening to Huberman podcasts and
trying to optimize your sleep and
maybe you've gone to therapy and you're
doing meditation, you're trying to be
balanced and regulated and all of these
things.
Typically to your friends around you,
that means, well, you know, like Leanne,
she's always got it together. Like
Leanne doesn't need she doesn't need
help. Like she's she's always good. But
you don't understand if this person is
bearing even more weight than everybody
else around them
but
just carrying it well.
Holding onto it, not breaking down. And
again, it goes back to the Rogan thing
of the worst thing that's ever happened
to you is the worst thing that's ever
happened to you. If you are carrying a
heavier weight than someone else, but
you just know that your capacity to lift
it is greater, that doesn't mean it
isn't heavy. It just means that you're
doing a really good job at keeping it
quiet.
Your life does not need to be easier, it
needs to be simpler. I think this is
such a true rule. Your system is
designed to handle stress and challenge
but not complication. And so,
think about it. You probably handle hard
things pretty well.
But you feel overwhelmed when they
become messy.
So, don't attribute to difficulty
something that can be explained by
complexity. Your system is designed to
handle stress and challenge,
but not complication.
If you think about the times when you
felt very overwhelmed,
I'm going to guess
that it's rarely because of one pathway
of thing being too intense. It's
typically because you have one thing
that's pretty intense, and then
your mom gets ill, or your partner has
an argument with you, or there's an
issue with your house, or the power goes
out, or that you lose your job, or
whatever.
It's the complexity that really wrecks
us. You are able to handle stress and
challenge, but the the complexity, the
complication
>> [gasps]
>> is when
stuff gets really difficult. And uh
yeah, don't attribute to difficulty
something that can get explained by
complexity. And obviously the solution
here, the implied solution, is
if you're feeling overwhelmed,
look at how you can reduce down
complexity
as opposed to intensity. Or if you've
got lots of things and it feels really
complicated and complex,
just attack one at a time. You're not
going to be able to fix your
relationship and get the power back on
in your house and complete that
presentation for what It's like, okay, I
just need to triage this. What is the
number one problem? And I'm just going
to go through them sequentially as
opposed to in parallel.
I I The more that I think about that
rule, that your system's designed to
handle stress but not complication, is
the more true it is. So,
try and simplify stuff wherever
possible.
Uh another one, you need fewer inputs,
not more.
The answers you seek
are in the silence you're avoiding.
The answers you seek
are in the silence you're avoiding.
Shameless rework of the magic you're
looking for
is in the work you're avoiding.
But, this is a different pathway and I
don't think that
I don't think that it's the same
solution.
A lot of the time you do need to work
harder and you're trying to dress it in
whatever outfit you can so that you
don't need to lean in and do the work.
And that's great and and
important and maybe for most people is
true.
But, after a while, once you've got the
I work hard muscle
embedded,
you then realize that because you're
working so hard, you're not listening to
fleeting thoughts. You've maybe pushed
your intuition to one side. You're not
able to tap into your gut as well. You
don't actually know what you like
because you're in so much chaos and
busyness and complication.
It's a little bit hard for you to tap
into that inner sense.
And that's when you need to use a
different fuel source. The answers you
seek are in the silence you're avoiding.
You could also say the answers you seek
are in the showers you're avoiding. I
think shower thoughts underrated. Toilet
thoughts overrated. Saw a tweet the
other day, some guy said that if you sit
on the toilet for too long with your ass
hanging out that you get hemorrhoids.
Don't know if that's true,
but
shower No one's ever had a problem with
too long of a shower. So, longer
showers, the answers you seek are in the
silence you're avoiding.
Another one.
Don't fall into the trap of mourning a
life that you can still live.
Don't fall into the trap of mourning a
life that you can still live.
Basically, if you are the sort of person
that's regularly surprised at how well
things go,
maybe that's a good indication
that you're allowed to believe in
yourself more.
So many people, as far as I can see,
have this
premeditated
resentment for the life that they don't
think they're going to be able to exist
in.
They don't think that they're going to
be able to live this life, but they
still have the opportunity to.
And a lot of these people, the
over-thinkers, the ones who conscience
makes a coward of,
they have all of the skills to be able
to fix this thing. They can go and get
this thing done,
but their over-thinking, their
fear is getting in the way of them
believing it, and
it's almost like
they're trapped inside of a prison.
They're the prisoner and the prison
guard, and they've got the keys on them
at the same time. Like, if things go
well, you can probably believe in
yourself more, and
if you still have the opportunity to
live a life, I think
it's a really bad idea to get resentful
and sad about the fact that you're not
living it. It's like, it's right in
front of you. Just go and do it.
And then, the final one, simple steps to
a better life. To improve your life,
focus on what you like, instead of what
you dislike,
and focus on people who focus on what
they like, instead of what they dislike.
And this just becomes more and more
true, especially as I get older, which
might be me trying to offset the sort of
natural entropy toward grumpiness, but
I just like being around people that are
enthusiastic
about stuff. The there are two
categories of friends typically that you
spend time with. One are people who want
to talk about [ __ ] that they're fired up
about, really excited.
This is something that's so cool. I've
got to show you this thing. And then,
did you see what {dot} {dot} {dot} did
today? Did you see that thing?
I don't know, man. [clears throat]
I just
I really like being around people that
are positive. And again, the one tattoo
that I have on my body is on the inside
of my wrist, and it says, "Smile."
Because I was trying to remind myself at
23 to stop being such a miserable
bastard, which might just be being
British. I don't know. However,
I like offsetting that. I like being
around people that make me more fired
up. Maybe there is someone out there who
is too enthusiastic and needs to be
around a bunch of British people to, you
know, bring that down. You come and be
my friend. I'll [ __ ] bring you back
down to earth. But, yeah, I think uh
be around people who talk about what
they like, not what they dislike.
And
to make your life better, also focus on
what you like instead of what you
dislike. So, you know, there's
some lessons about choosing your life
direction. In other news, Shopify powers
10% of all e-commerce companies in the
US. They are the driving force behind
Gymshark and Skins and Alo and Newtonic,
which is why I partnered with them.
Because when it comes to converting
browsers into buyers, they are best in
class. Their checkout is 36% better on
average compared to other leading
commerce platforms, and with Shop Pay,
you can boost conversions up to 50%.
Basically, you didn't get into business
to learn how to code or build a website
or deal with the inventory
stuff [ __ ] on the back end. You just
want to get down to creating and
promoting an awesome product. And
Shopify takes all of the mess off your
hands and allows you to focus on the job
you actually came here to do, designing
and selling the thing that you love. So,
upgrade your business and get the same
checkout that we use with Newtonic with
Shopify. Right now, you can sign up for
a $1 per month trial period by going to
the link in the description below or
heading to shopify.com/modernwisdom,
all lowercase. That's
shopify.com/modernwisdom.
All right, next one. The [ __ ] you
family. So,
I started thinking a lot about why the
fathers that I know seem to have a
different kind of confidence about
themselves. And
I think it's because of this concept
that I can't unsee anymore.
So, [ __ ] you money
is a meme.
But, it's also a truth, right? [ __ ] you
money. There's an amount of wealth that
you can achieve when the typical
restrictions and conventions no longer
apply to you. You don't have to
suck up to gatekeepers, you don't need
to do things that you don't want to do.
And in extreme situations, you basically
don't even need to follow the law cuz
you can just pay people off. Similarly,
[ __ ] you freedom is kind of downstream
from [ __ ] you money, but can also be
achieved through cultivating a lack of
resilience and reliance on other groups.
There's no restrictions on where you can
travel to and when and for how long. You
don't need to show up to work on time or
work at all. And if you're sufficiently
well structured, you don't even need to
care about the state of the economy or
the power grid or the wider world. This
is the I live in Dripping Springs on a
ranch that's got completely independent
power with solar
solar panels and a ton of guns and it's
it's tokamaks. This is tokamak. I'm
talking about tokamaks there. But
I then started thinking about a
different type of [ __ ] you liberation,
which is significantly cheaper,
and more accessible, and more common,
and maybe even more powerful. And this
is the [ __ ] you family.
So,
a lot of the fathers that I've spoken to
have told me about how their priorities
were completely changed
when they started a family.
All of the previous status games that
they played seem petty.
The games that they used to go through
in an attempt to impress people in power
or those with status seemed
juvenile
and shallow.
Much of their anxiety around whether
different people and groups like them or
thought that they were cool just sort of
evaporated because
the only people they needed to care
about impressing
were asleep under their roof or
in the bed next to them. Because
to their kids,
these dads were the coolest, richest,
strongest, most heroic person on the
planet.
And that gave them a very powerful type
of liberation.
It seems to me that much of what young
men get up to are surrogate activities
until they finally get a family. This
isn't to say that all fathers become
placid soy boy hippies or that having
kids neuters your ambition.
But it definitely seems to open up a new
level where they care far less about the
opinions of others.
And ultimately
what's the point in having [ __ ] you
freedom
if you never say [ __ ] you?
I really think that
the aggressive business chasing
capitalist meritocratic society thing,
which I'm all in favor of and have
benefited from obviously and love,
is playing off the fact that
the longer people put off having a
family
the more they find activities that
replace that same dynamic inside of
them. It's the obsession with body or
aesthetics or sport or business or
wealth creation or status or travel or
whatever. That's not to say that any of
these things can't be good, obviously,
but
if you were to have the family, I think
that you would find a lot of those It
would be like going around trying to eat
a [ __ ] ton of different foods that were
all nutrient sparse
when there was a nutrient dense food
that you could go to that would satisfy
a lot of those ambitions more quickly.
Does that make sense? It's basically
the the source that you could go to,
like the most pure version of this, the
condensed, like concentrated
weapons-grade version of a lot of what
you're looking for,
to me seems to be on the other side of a
family. I mean, look,
the I Is this hypocrisy? I don't think
it's hypocrisy. It's much It's closer to
dreaming, right? It's
I am totally open to the fact that I
might be completely wrong and I'm going
to have a family and
my drive is going to go up through the
roof and maybe I'm going to be more
miserable and maybe I'm going to care
more about the opinions of others and
what a [ __ ] amount of humble pie I'm
going to have to eat if that's the case.
I'm just going off what I've seen with
other people. I'm going off what I've
seen with the fathers around me and
stuff.
Maybe I've done a postmortem
incorrectly. Maybe I will live to eat my
words, but I don't know. Uh maybe this
is just a [ __ ] pipe dream. Maybe it's
a pipe dream for me that there's some
level of personal development available
on the other side of kids. Also, not
saying that you should only have kids as
a selfish way to bypass the work that
you need to do to care about the
opinions of others. Uh
just
intriguing thoughts. I'm just I just I'm
like a I'm a sommelier. I'm just
offering you some Ooh. Mm mm mm. Just
some intriguing thoughts for you there.
Uh or maybe just totally wrong ones. I
don't know.
All right.
Next one.
I [ __ ] love this idea. I absolutely
love this idea. The curse of
psychological strength.
Everyone has a limit, right? An an end
to the amount of discomfort that they
can cope with. And this is obvious
physically. Some people can lift more
and run further than others, but
how much emotional pain or upset or
disappointment that a person can endure
is subtler, harder to detect. It's not
apparent in the size of someone's arms,
but in the capacity of their nervous
system. It's not a weight that you can
see on a squat rack. It's their ability
to carry a heavy emotional load. And
this psychological strength can be a
good thing cuz you're able to handle
more than most. You don't bulk at pain.
You keep pushing through regardless of
how you feel.
But too much strength
can be a weakness.
And high performers are particularly
vulnerable to this trap.
Psychological strength is rewarded
almost everywhere.
In the gym, it's discipline.
In business, it's grit. In public, it's
composure.
You become the person who can handle it,
who doesn't complain, who pushes through
when others would quit.
Basically, your ability to ignore how
you feel
and keep moving forward earns
admiration, builds your career, and
creates momentum. But, what you are
praised for in public
you often pay for in private.
Relationships don't reward endurance.
They require attunement.
And if your default strategy in life is
to absorb discomfort and override
warning signs,
you will do exactly that
when someone repeatedly hurts you.
You'll rationalize it,
reframe it, decide that it's your job to
make it work.
And
the stronger you are,
the longer you can stay.
What like strength from the outside
becomes self-abandonment on the inside.
You've
trained yourself to believe that
struggle is noble and difficulty is
meaningful. So, when love feels
destabilizing,
it doesn't register as a warning.
It feels like a challenge.
And
challenges are your thing.
But,
a relationship isn't a marathon to be
endured. It's a place to feel safe.
And the qualities that make you
formidable in the arena
can quietly make you miserable
in your own living room.
Let's say that you're dating and you
feel like a side character in your own
relationship. You put them first,
they put you sixth. The rupture is
regular.
The repair is absent.
Lower resilience, less stubborn people
would have broken long ago and said,
"I'm out, but not you. You're the David
Goggins of psychological suffering.
Forget carrying the boats, you'll carry
the whole fleet forever.
In these situations, you're faced with a
much tougher problem.
Not how much can you tolerate,
but how much do you want to tolerate?
Perhaps this is what you had to do as a
child. If your needs weren't noticed,
your sadness gets ignored, or your
feelings didn't matter,
then you became accustomed to pushing
through disconnection
in order to make those relationships
function.
If child you learns,
"I need to work hard to be loved,"
then adult you believes,
"If I'm not loved,
I just need to work harder."
You achieve 10,000 hours of ignoring
your own needs.
You can't tell people how you feel
without first worrying about how it will
make them feel. You unconsciously
believe that suffering is the price of
connection and that
silent subjugation is noble. You
basically think, "I should be able to
tolerate the intolerable
in order to make this work."
And when you try to connect with someone
who doesn't see your needs, you don't
notice,
"This person isn't attuned to me."
Instead, you sense,
"Hmm,
this relationship pattern feels
familiar.
This must be what love is."
You have been trained at your core
that your needs don't matter.
So, you always must work to prove your
worth. And, importantly,
if you don't have to work for it,
you think that you can't trust it.
So, you push away people who are easy,
ready, and open,
and instead, you pursue those who are
distant, difficult, and disconnected.
I have to prove that I'm worthy of
loving
is a theory that becomes addictive and
completely disorienting.
The psychological strength that once
enabled you
has now
entrapped you. The capacity to endure
emotional pain without protest is what
happens when your nervous system learns
that discomfort
is safer than confrontation. And in
totality
this obscures your ability to understand
what you do and don't want to tolerate.
Perhaps your ego doesn't want to admit
defeat and shame spirals in this way.
If you believe you are the problem
you also have to be the solution.
So, you stay.
You tolerate. You try harder.
But just because you're suffering
doesn't mean that you're noble.
It just means that you're suffering.
No one is going to congratulate you on
your deathbed with a medal for
never making a fuss.
No one
is going to thank you for quietly
lifting weights that should have never
been yours to carry.
The answer isn't less resilience
but less denial.
Because
a boundary isn't an intellectual
decision.
It's an emotional limit.
And if you can't feel it
you can't enforce it.
Psychological strength doesn't always
make you strong.
Often, it just makes you stay too long.
And you risk one day waking up in a life
that you built entirely around what you
were willing to tolerate.
And then you finally break.
I think this is a so important,
especially for
hard-charging, type A, insecure,
overachiever,
thoughtful, reflective, empathetic-y
people.
The assumption that if this isn't
working, it's my job to fix it is noble.
It's a good thing. You should take
responsibility. You should try to help
other people. You should try to work
through things as opposed to just
quitting, but there is a limit.
And
what you're praised for in public, you
pay for in private. This kind of
psychological strength. You know, I had
I had Andy Stumpf on the show.
And he told me this story about how as a
Navy SEAL, he had basically built his
entire identity around being someone who
never quits.
And that caused him to stay in a
marriage that sounded
really destructive for a decade longer
than he should have done.
At the same time that
r/relationshipadvice
subreddit just leave them went from
I think 10% or 15% to 50%. It doubled or
tripled in the space of a decade and a
half. Uh go to therapy ticked up a
little bit, but like try to work through
it, explain your emotions, all of these
things trended down. So, two things are
true at once. That some people are
pulling the rip cord and unable to go
through discomfort.
I just don't think that that's you. If
you're listening to this show, if you're
into the wisdom-verse modern-wisdom-y
stuff,
I don't think that's you. I get the
sense that you're the sort of person who
holds themselves in emotional situations
far longer than they should do. That
always has this sense that someone's mad
at them. That they maybe they could be
doing more, they should be doing more.
They take responsibility and carry
weights that aren't theirs to bear.
Like
walking around with everybody else's
luggage and then wondering why your
shoulders hurt all the time.
Yeah, I I I just I [ __ ] love this
idea. It's one of the It's one of the
best things that I've seen and I'm
particularly interested in
things that are advantages
that we pay a price for. Psychological
strength is something almost always
almost everybody wants more of,
but look at how it can be damaging and
destabilizing
because you can't turn it off.
[ __ ] your feelings just work harder is a
great philosophy if you want to do it in
the office or in the gym. Like I'm It
doesn't matter if I'm tired. It doesn't
matter if I'm sick. It doesn't matter if
I I I don't feel up to it. I'm just
going to get through it, right? Unless
you're obsessed, obviously.
The same thing isn't true around your
kitchen table.
Like it it your capacity to
withstand emotional discomfort and just
keep moving
should be domain specific
at different levels. In the gym should
be very very high.
Uh in the office should be very very
high.
In your relationships and your
friendships
should be lower. Maybe with your family
should be a little I you know
I think it's a consideration that a lot
of people need to need to think about
because we praise this as such a
universal good, which it almost
certainly is.
I'm trying to find the situations
where it shouldn't be used or it gets
used too much. So, I think that's one of
them. Before we continue, I wish someone
had told me 5 years ago to stop
overthinking nutrition and just find
something that works. I've simplified
mine down to one scoop a day and it's
made hitting my nutritional bases an
awful lot easier. AG1 includes 75
vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and
whole food ingredients and that is why
I've been drinking it every morning for
over 5 years now. And I've taken it a
step further with AG1 next gen, the same
one scoop ritual, but now backed by four
clinical trials. In those trials, AG1
was shown to fill common nutrient gaps,
boost healthy gut bacteria by 10 times,
and improve key nutrient levels in just
3 months. They've been refining the
formula since 2010, 52 iterations and
counting. And I love the next gen
because it's more bioavailable, it's
clinical validation, which is
unbelievably rare in the supplement
world. The older I get, the more I
realize that the small stuff compounds.
And this is one of the smallest things I
do that makes a massive difference. If
you're still on the fence, they've got a
90-day money-back guarantee in the US,
so you can buy it and try it for 3
months. And if you do not like it,
they'll just give you your money back.
Right now, you can get a free AG1
welcome kit that includes a bottle of
D3K2, AG1 flavor sampler, and that
90-day money-back guarantee by going to
the link in the description below by
heading to drinkag1.com/modernwisdom.
That's drinkag1.com
/
modernwisdom.
All right, next one. I've been thinking
about the dark side of monk mode. So,
monk mode has grown to huge popularity
over the last few years as a
self-improvement strategy, especially
for men. Maybe on the internet you have
seen these videos about monk mode,
retreating from the world to focus on
the three eyes of introspection and
isolation and improvement. And
it's been talked about since 2014 was
the first time I read of it on the
Illimitable Man
blog. He says monk mode is a temporary
form of men going their own way by
cutting yourself off from the rest of
the world for a while, so that you can
fine-tune your focus and calibrate your
direction and confront yourself. You
acknowledge your weaknesses, and then
you formulate a plan of action to deal
with them. So, the focus is on
minimizing your time contribution to
social obligations and junk activities
because these consume so much of your
time while yielding little to negligible
increases toward your social market
value, right? Monk mode is a serious
commitment that shouldn't be half-assed.
You're either doing it or not. It'll be
a struggle in the beginning, but once
you've fully engaged it, it becomes a
beneficial, productive, and dare I say
even addictive lifestyle. So, that's
from the original blog post in 2014. And
look,
for all that I can criticize it, I've
gone full monk mode tons of times
throughout my life with really great
success. All of 2017, all of 2018,
mid-2019,
basically straight through COVID until
2021 when I moved out to America. I've
cut out alcohol for 2,000 days in the
last 8 years. I've done 500 days without
caffeine, over 2,000 sessions of
meditation, 5 years of daily gratitude
journals, over 300 sessions of yin yoga,
500 hours of Stu McGill's big three to
try and rehab my back. This just sounds
like the recipe for a very autistic
break. first I'm aware. But, this is all
done as well in a bedroom in Newcastle
upon Tyne in the UK, sat on my own,
usually first thing in the morning.
Okay?
I've done the monk mode thing, right?
That That's my Those are my credentials.
And almost all of the most important
progress that I ever made was
facilitated by a concentrated period
like this.
However,
monk mode's reliable effectiveness,
especially for men, especially for men
that are prone to a bit of introspection
and isolation,
creates a huge problem.
And the dark side is the final two words
from that blog post that I read,
addictive lifestyle.
The problem is monk mode justifies a
retreat from your life,
a retreat from risk-taking and
adventure, and repackages it as
self-development.
It makes you feel noble in isolation,
but it does that so effectively
that it can become hard to bring
yourself back out.
And that means if you already have a
tendency to live a sheltered,
routinized, unsocial life,
you are encouraging yourself to sort of
abscond further away
from ever building a real-life support
network, which is actually the thing
that you need most in the long run. But
the reason that you're doing all of this
work, the isolation, the introspection,
the improvement, is to reintegrate to
society and be effective, but it's so
addicting that a lot of the time people
who do monk mode
just never reintegrate. And I saw this
with a friend like 15 years ago who was
competing to go into a bodybuilding
competition. He already was introverted
and socially shy, and then his upcoming
fitness competition justified 8:00 p.m.
bedtimes and militant routines and
rejecting all social invites.
And the competition came and went,
but the routine didn't change, and it
took years for him to re-venture out
into some sense of normality.
This is largely a personal reflection,
too, right? The
allure of perpetually working on
yourself
is very high. And improvement is
rewarding,
but if you're not careful, you can spend
the rest of your life focused on
isolation, introspection, and
improvement
at the expense of the actual reason that
you did monk mode in the first place,
which is to be able to show up in the
world in a better way.
Bill Perkins says delayed gratification
in the extreme results in no
gratification.
With monk mode, you practice in private
so that you can perform in public.
But private practice in the extreme
results in no public performance.
So, basically, don't obsess for too long
in solitude for personal growth
or you'll struggle to reintegrate. And
the solution is,
I think, periodize.
Set a deadline for your monk mode to
end. 3 to 6 months is a really good
sweet spot in my experience. You can do
longer if you've never done it before.
You can do shorter if you're sort of
more developed on your journey. But,
yeah, man, I
I really [ __ ] earned my stripes,
right? Doing the isolation, the
introspection, and the improvement.
I
the more that I did it, the harder it
was to integrate,
which I guess is the fourth eye.
Isolation, improvement,
uh uh
introspection. But, then the fourth one,
which is the one that you're actually
here, is integration. Like, how do I
bring what I've learned in private back
across into the public? I am trying to
make myself a better person so that I
can
function more effectively in the world,
be more successful in my business, move
along in my career, make better friends,
find a partner that I love, you know,
just function in the world in a better
way. But,
it does repackage
isolation as nobility.
And, again, if you've got that
predisposition, if you're the sort of
person who tends to spend time on their
own already,
this is going to push you in a direction
you're already moving in. It's going to
exaggerate your predispositions as
opposed to correcting the imbalances.
And uh yeah, look, I love monk mode. I
think it's great. Just no one that's
either done a video on it or tried to
create a [ __ ] course on it
has talked about the challenge of
reintegration publicly because it's way
less sexy. And this is the [ __ ]
problem with almost everything. All of
the different things that I've talked
about today, psychological strength, uh
uh uh the
self-awareness,
everybody will want to extol the virtues
of why it's great, and it is.
Given that I'm basically trying to
uh dispel comforting myths about
commonly held personal development
strategies. That's basically what this
this like lessons episode is. Sorry if
I've [ __ ] ripped the rug out from
underneath you. This is also why when I
talk about this stuff, especially on the
internet, doesn't ever happen at the
live shows, I think, because people
they're able to see it in totality
whilst they're focused and not at four
times speed. Or maybe they're just too
scared to [ __ ] criticize me. I don't
know.
On the internet, people hate having
their comforting illusions pulled out
from underneath them.
So, there will be a ton of criticisms
about my criticisms. Easy for you to
say, you've already da da da da da da da
da da da da. I'm like, "Hey, dude.
I'm not saying that these things,
psychological strength, being
self-aware, the opportunity to
isolate yourself and work on your I'm
not saying that these things aren't
good.
I'm warning you of some of the side
effects that come along for the ride
that no one wants to talk about. The
reason no one wants to talk about it is
it's anti-memetic. It's it's inherently
unmotivating, right? To talk about the
fragility of obsession
is an anti-memetic idea.
Because people want to believe that
their obsession'll carry them through or
that discipline and motivation will be
all that they need because they can't
engineer their obsession. I'm
I'm just here to tell you in my
experience,
that's not the way it is at all. And I'm
sorry. And if I could change it, I
would.
But I think that this is a much more
important conversation to talk about.
All right, that was a bit dark. Let's do
some interesting differences between the
sexes. So, I've been researching sex
differences.
I found some spicy ones.
Your guy friend is attracted to you, and
he thinks that you're attracted to him,
too. So, a study of Americans finds that
in platonic couples, the men are far
more likely than the women to find their
friends sexy and far more likely to
think that she finds them attractive,
too.
Indeed, a man's assessment of how much
his female friend fancies him matches
how much he fancies her
and it is unrelated to how she really
feels.
So,
shock, horror, men are prone to wishful
thinking.
Also, there is a uh
well-understood
failure of cross-sex mind reading, the
uh male overestimation and female
underestimation of attraction, but
your guy friend is attracted to you,
ladies, and
he thinks that you're attracted to him,
too.
Nearly half of your guy friends are
trying to sleep with you as a woman. So,
William Costello polled 527 heterosexual
and bisexual people and asked the
question, "Are opposite-sex friendships
ever truly platonic?"
81% of women said, "Yes."
Only 58% of men said, "Yes." So, women
were three times more likely than men to
say that their friendship was purely
platonic.
Half
of guy friends
in the platonic friendship
are trying to sleep with you.
And this is why dudes when their girl
friend says, you know, "He's No, he's
just nice. He's just
I'm sorry, ladies. We We understand how
that works. We understand how men's
minds work, and you understand how
women's mind work, right? But
not only are guys more attracted to you
than you are to them, they think that
you are as attracted to them as they are
to you, and you don't know either of
these things. So, I uh
that's an uncomfortable one.
There's double standards over
infidelity. So, according to recent
polling, both sexes think it's worse for
a husband than a wife to have an affair,
which is sort of the opposite of the
traditional double standard. So, 53% of
men say it's always morally wrong for a
married woman to have an affair,
but 61% of men say it's always morally
wrong for a married man to have an
affair. So, 53% of men say it's wrong
for a woman, 61% of men say it's wrong
for a man.
56% of women
say it's always morally wrong for a
married woman to have an affair,
and 70% of women say it's always morally
wrong for a married man to have an
affair.
That's
What's interesting here is both men and
women judge men more harshly
for
infidelity.
And women judge both men and women more
harshly.
Like, what's that? 9% more? So, 61% of
men say it's wrong for a man, 70% of
women say it's wrong for a man. 53% of
men say it's wrong for a woman, 56% of
women say it's wrong for a woman. So, I
mean, women are more
sort of enforcing and judgmental on
this, generally.
Um might not be that surprising, but uh
I don't know what that says.
Spicy.
Romantic relationships matter more to
men than to women. So, this is from
Steve Stewart-Williams, who's got a new
book out. He's coming on the show very
soon. Romantic relationships matter more
to men than to women. Stereotypes say
it's women who care more, but this time
the stereotypes are wrong.
A new paper in Behavioral and Brain
Sciences assessed that very question,
and researchers found that, among other
things, men strive harder to establish
romantic relationships, they fall in
love faster, they benefit more from
relationships, depend more on their
relationships for social support, are
less likely to initiate breakups, suffer
more in the wake of a breakup, and take
longer to get over their exes. So,
I
wonder how much of this is wrapped up in
the fact that men don't have social
support structures outside of their
relationship in the same way that women
do. Typically, women have a broader uh
and tighter support structure of
friends, and a lot of the time when men
get married, they get rid of their
social support system and just sort of
adopt the wife's support system. Her
friends and the husbands of her friends
become his friends, and then if they get
divorced, those friends
go with her, not with him. So, not only
does he lose a wife, he also loses his
social support network because he let
his atrophy. This is kind of typical.
But, they fall in love faster, uh strive
harder to establish romantic
relationships, benefit more from
relationship. I think all of this is
like
pretty normal. If you were to look
ancestrally, why not? Like, women have
got more choices, so men need to work
harder to do it.
Women are always going to be able to get
a replacement,
and men are going to struggle more so.
So, they're going to take longer to get
over. They're going to be more worried.
They suffer more in the wake of
breakups. They're less likely to
initiate breakups because the chance of
them finding somebody else. They depend
more on their relationship for social
support. All of these things
make complete sense, especially when you
look at it ancestrally, but anything
that denies male privilege is usually
treated as kind of abhorrent or or
blasphemous. And I just think it's it's
cool to highlight some of the ways that
maybe things aren't super rosy for guys,
or maybe maybe some stereotypes are
turned sort of back to front. Not
calling women bad or men weak or men
more moral or anything like that.
It's [ __ ] interesting. All right.
Married men and women disagree on how
much sex to have. Women typically
believe their marriages have about the
right frequency of sex, whereas men
wished for twice as much sex as they
were having. This suggests many couples
are just at a sexual frequency
to the lower rate that the wife desires,
right? Women typically believe their
marriages have about the right frequency
of sex.
Men wished for twice as much more.
That means that there is a disparity in
what people want versus what they're
getting for each partner.
But look at which partner it defaulted
to.
It defaulted to the woman, not to the
man. Now, that's not a bad thing, right?
You might say it's much better to have
to to like run the speed of the race
at that of the slowest person as opposed
to like dragging them along. Like
there's definitely a difference between
someone who doesn't get to have sex that
they want and someone that has to have
sex that they don't want, obviously, but
it is interesting that there has to be a
negotiation that goes on here, and men
are sacrificing on average 50% of the
amount of sex that they want.
And it's sitting at around about the
right amount that women do want. It
would be interesting to see how many of
these women would want even less sex,
but aren't prepared to say it because
they know that their partner wants more.
That would be really interesting to work
out. Also, would be interesting to work
out if women want more sex, but they're
just scared of telling researchers what
they truly believe, maybe because
they think that there's more judgment
around women being sexually open or
something like that.
But
more spice. Before we continue, most
people in their 30s are still training
hard. Their protein is dialed in. They
sleep better than they did in their 20s.
Discipline is not the issue, but
recovery feels
somewhat different. Strength gains take
a little longer. The margin for error
starts to shrink, and that That why I'm
such a huge fan of Timeline. You see,
mitochondria are the energy producers
inside of your muscle cells. As they
weaken with age, your ability to
generate power and recover effectively
changes, even if your habits stay
strong. Mitopure from Timeline contains
the only clinically validated form of
urolithin A used in human trials. It
promotes mitophagy, which is your body's
natural process for clearing out damaged
mitochondria and renewing healthy ones.
In studies, this
supported mitochondrial function and
muscle strength in older adults. It's
not about pushing harder, it's about
actually supporting the cellular
machinery underneath your training. If
you care about staying strong into your
30s, 40s, and 50s and beyond, this is
foundational. Best of all, there is a
30-day money-back guarantee, plus free
shipping in the US, and they ship
internationally. And right now, you can
get up to 20% off by going to the link
in the description below or heading to
timeline.com/modernwisdom
and using the code modernwisdom at
checkout. That's
timeline.com/modernwisdom.
And modernwisdom at checkout. And a
final one here, which is actually
nothing to do with sex differences, but
far fewer people
are made for polyamory than think that
they are. You polyamory is hilarious
because the community is basically 5%
genuinely ascended, emotionally
hyper-intelligent communication masters
who've got nervous systems like a
[ __ ] glass lake.
And 95% insatiable hungry ghosts who
have convinced themselves
that they're the former.
This is from Cook Fucius that me and
George [ __ ] love on Substack. He's so
He's so funny. Even just the name is
brilliant. Uh polyamory, 5% like
guys on the right with the the
Jedi master huddle up, and 95%
spiritually bypassed, bead-wearing,
fedora-hat,
shawl,
Burning Man
like hungry ghosts. And I think in my
experience, this is really true. And the
problem is that the people who are in
the 95% who
can't get it right and aren't built for
it and just keep on trying more and more
and more until in the hopes that that's
going to fix the problem
have
mistaken themselves for the former and
use the success of the people who've got
the amazing nervous systems and can
handle it as the justification for why
they keep going.
But, they are not the same. Shock,
horror.
All right. The internet is awash with
videos about how to find your true self.
But, what do we mean when we talk about
our true self? I think we live with a a
quiet superstition that beneath the
noise of our habits and our mistakes and
contradictions lies a a truer version of
ourselves, a self that's fundamentally
good. An alcoholic who gets sober
is becoming who he really is. But, a
sober man who starts drinking again has
lost his way.
Uh in Scrooge, Dickens didn't just write
about a man who swapped stinginess for
generosity, he wrote about a man who
discovered his real nature. Uh when
Richard Nixon fell in disgrace, people
said that power had corrupted his real
self. But, when Nelson Mandela forgave
his captors, the world said his true
self had been revealed.
Or in real life, patients that have got
dementia or lose their memory but retain
their kindness are often seen by loved
ones as still the same person. While
those same people who grow cruel are
perceived as having lost their essence.
Like even even when fiction tries to
make villains irredeemable,
audiences resist. Darth Vader is
terrifying
until he saves his son and proves that
there was goodness there deep down.
We are reluctant to accept that anyone,
even [ __ ] Satan in Paradise Lost,
is rotten all the way through.
And our language betrays the bias.
Goodness is authenticity,
while badness is a mask. And
psychologists have tested this belief,
and the results are so consistent.
People overwhelmingly identify morally
positive changes as revealing someone's
true self, but dismiss negative changes
as surface corruption. I started
thinking about this when I saw this
unreal study by the man called Mark. So,
a study about a man called Mark. Mark's
life was presented in two versions,
right? In one, he was a devout Christian
who believed homosexuality was wrong,
but admitted he was attracted to men.
In the other, he was a liberal who
believed homosexuality was perfectly
acceptable, but confessed to secretly
feeling repulsed by same-sex couples.
And in both cases, Mark was split,
right? Belief pulled him one way, while
a feeling pulled him the other. The
question to participants was simple.
Which side represented his true self?
Liberals almost always said the
attraction to men revealed who Mark
really was,
while his disgust at homosexuality was
right-wing programming.
Conservatives almost always said that
his conviction against homosexuality
revealed who he really was, and his
public support was woke peer pressure.
Basically, each group looked at the same
man
and saw their own values reflected back
at them.
It wasn't that people consistently
treated beliefs as more authentic or
feelings as less genuine.
Instead, they treated whichever side
lined up with their own moral compass as
the real side.
And this has some fascinating
implications because it suggests that
authenticity isn't something we find
inside others. Instead, it's something
that we project onto them.
What counted as Mark's essence wasn't
hiding in him at all. It existed in the
values of the people that were judging
him. And these fights are never just
about evidence.
They're about who gets to define
authenticity.
Interestingly, the whole exercise only
works when someone is conflicted. If
Mark only had one belief or one feeling,
no one would have hesitated to declare,
"Oh, that's who he is."
Conflict is
the playground where we get to impose
our judgments about which side counts as
the real self.
There are consequences to always seeing
ourselves and the others that we favor
as moral, too, right? It it it cushions
us from despair because failures can be
brushed aside as not really me, which
makes bouncing back after mistakes
easier.
But it also blinds us to our own cruelty
because harmful actions get rationalized
as accidents or errors or aberrations.
It creates an asymmetry where we forgive
ourselves quickly
while judging others more harshly. It It
skews our sense of authenticity because
we treat
virtuous impulses as real
and darker ones as intrusions, which can
make us dangerously naive about people
who are not conflicted at all,
but those for whom malice isn't a mask,
but it's a pattern. And it feels this
sort of lifelong quest to uncover the
good self
as though the work of living is not
making choices, but
excavating our own purity.
And to add even more complexity to it,
notice how unevenly this belief gets
applied. If goodness is the truth
and badness is a mask, then in theory,
we should treat all people's goodness as
authentic
and all people's badness as superficial.
But that isn't what we do.
With our allies, we assume their virtues
show who they really are, while their
failures are only slips or distortions
or masks.
But with our opponents, we reverse it.
Their good deeds are dismissed as fake
or manipulative, while their mistakes
and vices
are taken as proof of their true
character.
This double standard shows that the rule
isn't actually goodness is authenticity.
The rule is the kind of goodness I value
is authenticity.
Our side's goodness is treated as
essence,
while the other side's goodness is
treated as performance. And our side's
failings are masks, but the other side's
failings are revelations.
Psychologically,
this makes sense. In small groups,
assuming hidden goodness on insiders
helped to maintain our trust and our
cohesion,
and it assumed hidden badness in
outsiders helped us define the boundary
between us and them.
But the cost is distortion. We give our
friends a free pass
while demonizing our rivals, blinded to
their real virtues and our own side's
flaws.
What looks like a rule about human
nature, goodness is truth and badness is
a mask,
actually turns out to be a rule about
group loyalty.
So,
here's a disconcerting idea.
What if our true self
doesn't exist at all?
What if we are nothing but the bundle of
drives and beliefs and feelings that
show up in the moment?
The addict is just as much himself when
he drinks as when he doesn't.
Scrooge was authentically Scrooge as a
miser and as a benefactor.
And we only anoint the generous version
as authentic
because it flatters our sense of what
humans ought to be.
And in this light, the true self isn't
discovered.
It's basically invented.
The fiction makes forgiveness possible,
but it also blinds us to cruelty and
shortcomings.
It allows us to keep loving people even
at their worst,
but it also tricks us into
underestimating their malice.
We say every tyrant or abuser has a
hidden spark of goodness,
even when sometimes there isn't one.
You can see this bias everywhere.
Addicts in recovery routinely say, "That
wasn't the real me." about their lowest
points,
but no one ever says that sobriety is
fake.
Childhood stories teach us the frog is
really a prince, the beast is really
gentle, the happy ending is always
framed as the revelation
of what was hidden all along.
Therapists describe patients getting
back to themselves after depression,
but it's almost unthinkable to frame it
the other way, right? That the depressed
version is the truest one. Even in daily
life, when a friend lashes out in anger,
we soothe ourselves by saying, "That's
not who she is."
But when they show generosity, we never
say, "That's not them."
I I hope that that's not the truth,
right? That there is no authentic real
self, but
my fear, my philosophical hypotheses
that I want to be disproven is that
there may be no real you at all. The
true self isn't something to be
discovered. Instead, it's something that
we invent. It's a
a superstition that we cling on to
because it makes forgiveness easier and
love sustainable
and cruelty bearable.
And I started thinking about this when I
went through some spicy stuff at the
start of the year, and what I realized
was
when you're getting criticism, you're
being criticized from almost always one
side for saying one thing that they
don't agree with. And if they say, "Who
are you to talk about this topic?"
the exact opposite opinion would occur
if you were saying something different.
So, if someone says, "Who are you to
comment about the environment?" if
they're an environmentalist, and you are
saying something which seems
environmentally critical,
but if you were saying something that
was environmentally supportive in that
direction, they would want you to say
more.
So, it's not really you're not allowed
to speak about this, it's I have a
problem with the direction in which
you're speaking. And because of that, I
found the next closest association.
Like, who are you, American person, to
talk about the way that Britain is uh
dealing with its immigration problem?
Because you're saying something that
disagrees with whatever that person's
point of view is.
But if you were saying something that
agreed with them, they would want you to
say it more. No one is saying, "Your
support is too much. Please stop doing
it because you're not supposed to be
talking here."
They will say, "Your criticism is too
much. You shouldn't be talking. You're
not supposed to be here."
It seems like an asymmetry, you know? Uh
men shouldn't be talking about women's
bodies. Well, if the men were in support
of access to birth control when Roe v.
Wade got repealed,
I would imagine that lots of women who
don't want men talking about women's
bodies would have liked men to be
talking about women's bodies. In fact,
that's the only thing that you can get
support with if you want to get 50% of
the population to get on board with this
thing that you think is really
important.
But if you only want to accept voices
from the other side when they're in
support of you, you can't expect them to
show up if you criticize them when they
don't agree.
All right, that's it.
1,100 episodes. Holy [ __ ] Uh thank you
all. I love you to bits. Thank you for
supporting me. Thank you for supporting
the show. I'm here in the new studio.
This place rules. I got so many big
episodes coming up. Uh like, subscribe.
It really does make a difference. Still
now, 4.2 million subscribers later, it
does make a difference. So, wherever you
are listening or watching, I appreciate
you. I hope you have a wonderful day.
And I'll see you next time.