Video summary
The podcast explores Bryan Johnson's specific strategy for breaking a persistent habit of evening overeating, which he attributed to declining willpower and stress by 7:00 p.m. Rather than relying on traditional methods like exercise or moralizing himself into submission, Johnson personified his urge to eat as "Evening Brian," an unreliable entity that constantly generated rationalizations such as needing a final bite before bed or promising hard workouts the next morning. By firing this internal persona and establishing a strict rule prohibiting food consumption between 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., Johnson eliminated the opportunity for negotiation with his own impulses. This approach highlights a core principle of James Clear's methodology discussed in the conversation: that "none is better than some," meaning one should not rely on moderation or occasional exceptions, as these often serve as excuses to justify failure rather than genuine self-control. The discussion then shifts from specific habits to the broader philosophical trap of seeking balance through moderation, which the speakers argue can actually lead to extremes in behavior. Using cookies and biscuits as an analogy, they illustrate that humans tend toward binary choices—eating none or all—rather than a moderate middle ground, because true moderation requires constant vigilance against rationalization. The conversation introduces Isaiah Berlin's concept of the "inner citadel," where individuals retreat inwardly when external desires cannot be met by teaching themselves not to want what is impossible rather than cutting off their legs entirely. This psychological mechanism explains why people often invert values; if a desire feels low status or unattainable, they may adopt an extreme stance against it while simultaneously elevating other pursuits like wealth and power as the new high-status goals of society. A significant portion of the dialogue is dedicated to analyzing the societal game of status, distinguishing between raw money and prestige. The speakers note a distinct asymmetry where individuals with immense wealth continue to chase status in forms like renown, popularity, and dominance, whereas those who achieve high social standing rarely pursue more money once their needs are met. Money is viewed as an evolutionarily novel proxy for status that provides transactional power but does not satisfy the fundamental human drive for recognition or superiority. The conversation suggests that while capitalism currently defines what constitutes "high status," this definition can be flawed, leading people to trade existence itself for wealth and power. This pursuit of external validation creates tension in relationships and life, often manifesting as a struggle between competing forces trying to dominate one another rather than finding harmony. Ultimately, the speakers conclude that instead of attempting to defeat gravity or change human nature directly, it is more effective to redefine the objective function of society's master game. The proposed solution is not to convince people to stop playing for status but to shift what counts as high status from material wealth and dominance to "existence itself." By declaring existence the highest virtue, individuals can apply their existing behavioral archetypes toward a new goal that does not require sacrificing life or health for external rewards. This approach mirrors a judo throw that uses an opponent's momentum against them; by keeping human behaviors constant but changing the target of those behaviors from accumulation to presence, society could potentially resolve its inherent tensions without needing to fundamentally alter how people think or act.
Read the full video transcript
talk me through your James Clear
approach to the Brian Johnson's James
Clear retirement.
>> Okay. So, actually I I'll show you mine,
but I wonder if this resonates or not
with people, but I had this issue where
at 7:00 p.m. I would overeat every
night.
>> Mhm. Yeah. Evening eating for me is the
only time. And no, no one ever overeats
in a breakfast. Oh, yeah. It was 9:00
a.m. and I gorged myself on Snickers.
Exactly. Yeah. Like maybe like in a a
weekend brunch where you order, you
know, pancakes. You're like, "Oh my
god."
>> It's a one-off. Yeah, that was a bad
idea. I don't want to do that again.
>> Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So, like your
willpower goes down all day. It makes
sense. Like 7 p.m. like you have stress.
You're worn down. Like you just want to
like whatever. So that was my issue. I
over ate at 7 p.m. And so I did it every
day for years. And every night it was
the same battle, right? Like I'm not
going to do it. I'm not going to do it.
I do it. And then like you know my the
top button of my pants I can't be
buttoned up. I'm like [ __ ] hate
myself. Like this is so tight. I'm so
uncomfortable. So I tried so many things
to stop that and I couldn't. And so the
one thing that I did is one day I just
kind of said in justest evening Brian
you're fired. Like you Brian who occupy
me from 5:00 p.m. to 7 to 10 p.m. you're
an unreliable
thing. Like every day it steward. Like
you basically um come up with these
rationalizations like tonight's the last
night, tomorrow morning we're going to
exercise really hard. It's one bite.
Whatever your specific entry point is,
you always convince me to do it.
>> You're a slippery [ __ ]
>> Exactly. And you basically make morning
Brian miserable. You make dad Brian less
good less good dad. Like ambitious Brian
is hurting because of you. And so I said
you're fired. And so that means from
5:00 p.m. to 10 p.m. you do not have
authority to eat food no matter what.
Like I don't care what's happening. You
cannot eat food because you're so
shifty. And so I just made that rule.
And so I gave him a name. I wrote down
his arguments. And so he would come into
my mind. He'd be like, "Hey, I'm here."
And I' like, "Hey, evening Brian." Like,
"How you doing, man?
>> [ __ ] you."
>> Yeah. And like, "Oh, you're going to use
the we're going to work out hard
tomorrow morning argument." Or like,
"Tonight's last night. Like, I see you."
And I know what that is. And I've done
this a 100 times. I've never in my
entire life felt satisfied with myself
after doing this ever. I've never felt
proud of myself. I've never felt good.
>> Yeah. You're selling yourself a lie
about how you're going to feel after
doing this.
>> Exactly. And so yeah, that was just it
was just a rule. And so I guess that the
rule is something like none is better
than some that we do like to rationalize
that oh just like every once in a while
is fine. Moderation is a principle of
life I want to play by. We have all
these very clever catchphrases to
justify our inability to actually do
what we want.
>> And so yeah, that was a really clean
hook for me.
>> That's cool. And the reason that I like
it is because of this most recent
iteration of ah the overoptimizing. Can
we not just [ __ ] like how lame, how
like, you know, the stress of trying to
be perfect is killing you more quickly
than your imperfections.
>> Um, moderation, man. And there is a
kernel of truth in it. And this is why
like a slower, more gentle approach to I
see you. I think there's something
there. The I see you. I think there's
something there
>> is, hey, man. um your focus on these
habits is a kind of fragility
uh and it is destroying the enjoyment of
life by obsessing over how you live it.
Right? So I get the angle on that.
>> The problem is that nobody scrutinizes
the just live by vibes man approach
>> with the same like level of uh
resolution because by design they're
living by [ __ ] vibes. So nothing's
>> being tracked.
>> But you I've never even thought of it
before, but you [ __ ] nailed it. Which
is
>> um the I just live by moderation, dude,
is not living by moderation. It's living
by extremis. Yeah. Like you end up the
moderation. You put I always use this
example because I like biscuits.
Cookies. I like biscuits. Um if you tell
me pack of Oreos, there's one outside.
Uh you can eat none of them or you can
eat all of them. I'm like,
>> done.
>> Exactly right.
>> But you can eat two of them. like
>> exactly
>> [ __ ] Superman. No, I can't eat two of
them.
>> No, if you give me a star and maybe I
don't know, maybe some people aren't
like this.
>> I'm I'm a eat all of them or eat one of
them kind of guy. So
>> you're what on the surface like First
Order looks like
>> that you very bureaucratic dictatorial
Nazi policy like how can you do this to
yourself? Like ah you're not balancing
life. Like it would be much better if
you just allowed yourself to treat like
every so often. It's okay. Show me how
every so often your every so often is.
>> Yeah. Exactly.
>> It's not that every so often. It's
actually
>> most of the time.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh you know, I just like I'm a bit more
flexible with my sleep. You know,
sometimes I let myself sleep in,
sometimes I give myself I go to bed a
little bit later. Like it's like,
>> okay, let just look at when you're going
to bed. It just keeps on shifting later
and later. And there is no trend over
time. It's just w and sometimes it's
getting wider.
>> Yeah. Um, so yeah, I think I' I've never
thought of it before, but the um
everything in moderation is not done in
moderation.
>> Exactly. Right. Yeah. So this is like
again mmetic moral philosophy warfare.
So the person who's arguing for
moderation is attempting to take uh a a
drive towards health and uh make that
low status and make their moderation
high status. So this if you if you if
you look at the world through this lens,
you realize everybody at all times is
trying to take their position and
they're like assessing the battlefield
and they're saying anything that makes
me feel low status, I'm going to invert
and make that high status thing low
status and my thing high status because
I inherently want to feel superior to
people at all times. And then that is
like literally everything that's
happening at any moment in society ever.
It's just like humans want to feel
superior and high status.
>> Okay. Do you know uh the inner citadel
idea by Isaiah Berlin?
>> I don't.
>> Allow me to teach you. I think this may
be useful to you.
>> Uh Isaiah Berlin says, "When the natural
road to one human fulfillment is
blocked, human beings retreat into
themselves, become involved in
themselves, and try to create inwardly
that world which some evil fate has
denied them externally. If you cannot
obtain from the world that which you
really desire, you must teach yourself
not to want it. If you cannot get what
you want, you must teach yourself to
want what you can get. This is a very
frequent form of spiritual retreat in
depth into a kind of inner citadel in
which you try to lock yourself up
against all the fearful ills of the
world. The different way to look at it
is if your leg is wounded, you can try
to treat the leg and if you can't then
you cut off the leg and denounce that
the desire for legs is misguided and
just be subdued.
>> That's right. Yeah. I mean that's it.
That's I mean basically that's the exact
articulation of what we've been
discussing. Yep. It's pimemetic and
moral philosophy of warfare to feel
superiority
>> because nobody wants to feel inferior.
>> Yeah. It's like
>> you looked at uh Adlerian stuff much.
Yeah. And a lot of that is driven by
this I can't be inferior.
>> Yeah.
>> This is why getting into a relationship
with too much of a power imbalance. One
person is significantly busier than the
other. One person is significantly
better looking the other. One person has
significantly more attention than the
other. The power imbalance is so great
that unless the second person is happy
to only ever sing harmony and never sing
lead and is there like in service and
the service becomes their reward, if you
have two people, you can't have two
people singing lead.
>> Like one person has to sing harmony and
if your lead singing and their lead
singing and theirs is [ __ ] way ahead
or yours is way ahead, there's going to
be tension. You know, I think about um
I think about those bridges that you see
during earthquakes and they sort of do
this. They like flex like that. And I
think about that's the kind of visual.
It's this sort of flexing in tension.
It's not even necessarily a pulling
apart. It's I'm going this way and
you're going that way and
>> Yeah. Yeah. Exactly right. Yeah. I mean
100% like what what is society? I mean,
I guess like there's two macro games
happening in society like in that
tension is um what is what is high
status and then within that game of who
is high status,
right? That's it. And then you've got
everyone else playing to try to take the
high status, make it low status, but
like right now the highest status game
is wealth,
right? Capitalism. And this came from
Adam Smith couple. This is what I'm
saying. We look at
>> is the highest status game raw wealth?
What what about uh renown, popularity,
recognition? Because you look at uh at
somebody who already has lots of wealth
and a lot of the time they continue to
pursue status. I spoke about this with
Naval and his I I think this is true.
Interested to get your perspective.
Money is evolutionarily novel and yet
it's a proxy for status and it gives you
things that status can't. But we should
have raw status for status's sake,
prestige, dominance, access, it's like
uh recognition.
>> That should be more deeply rooted and
therefore less easy to satiate
>> than money cuz money is more novel
>> and money is not direct access to the
thing that you need, right? Money
without status can make you live, but
and status without money can make you
[ __ ] miserable and kind of on the
street in a way. But it seems like
people who get lots of status rarely
continue to pursue money whereas people
who get the [ __ ] infinity money do
always continue to pursue status. Do you
see an asymmetry here? I'm interested
with your perspective on money and
status.
>> Absolutely right. I mean I think uh
basically I think that's correct. I
think uh money has more raw power
>> just from a transactional
>> just just raw power like the ability to
to do things in the world like to move
the world money is in so in this current
context
>> now behind that so again like remember
two games one is what is high status and
then two is who's winning within status
and so my con my comment on money is
that that is within context of that is
high status status. But if you look at
broader status of what is high status um
right like religion has played status
right like you look at Christianity
where Jesus is like look guys um I've
got a new status game for you
>> and it's not what uh you're being told
like I'm going to tell you a whole new
rule set and so any religion has done
that and so this is the game I'm trying
to play. I'm trying to basically say
like right now capitalism is status.
Like it is if we said like this is the
thing and I'm trying to say this is the
thing that might lead us to make a a
terrible error in judgment on what we do
in this moment
>> and that the the flip is existence
itself is high status.
>> Interesting.
>> And never to the exchange of anything
else. It never is never worth trading
existence for anything else. Wealth,
power or status. Existence itself is the
highest virtue.
>> Yeah, I I I do understand. And I think
what I like is that you are not trying
to upend the game of status itself.
>> Yeah,
>> that's locked in. It's like saying
>> it's like saying uh well, you know,
rather than trying to work out a more
efficient rocket to get us off this
launch pad, we can just defeat gravity.
And you go
>> no.
>> Yeah.
>> There are physics within the system and
one of the physics is one of the
physical laws is
>> yeah status.
>> Yeah. So really the master game in
society like the ultimate game is
determining what is status like what is
high status and then of course you have
billions and billions of humans will
play within the game.
>> They'll just be like oh this is the this
is the game the function the reward
system like I'm playing. They won't
think about it. They really won't
realize that the game's been set up for
them. They'll just play it.
>> That's interesting. Yeah. So rather than
trying to uh convince people not to play
the game, you just change what the game
is pointing at.
>> Exactly. And they'll play they'll have
the same fundamentals they'll apply to
the new game. So when you when you say
existence is the highest virtue that the
same human behaviors that are stamped
out throughout time, same archetypes,
same players, same stuff every single
time. Just get the game right. And
that's what I'm saying. Like if this
moment is so simple,
>> just get the objective function correct.
It's like a I know some sort of judo
throw that uses your opponent's momentum
against them, so to speak.
>> Yeah, that's right. That's right.
>> In other news, if you're feeling tired,
you might not need more sleep. You might
not need more caffeine. You might just
be dehydrated. And proper hydration is
not just about drinking enough water.
It's about having sufficient
electrolytes to allow your body to
properly absorb those fluids. Element
contains a sciencebacked electrolyte
ratio. Sodium, potassium, and magnesium
with no color, no sugar, no artificial
ingredients, or any other BS. It plays a
critical role in reducing muscle cramps
and fatigue. It optimizes brain health,
regulates your appetite, helps curb
cravings, and that's why it's used by
everyone from Dr. Andrew Hubman to
Olympic athletes and FBI sniper teams.
This lemon
lemonade flavor Nicole glass of water is
how I've started my morning every single
week for years. [laughter]
They've got a no questions asked refund
policy, so you can return it and they
won't even ask you to send the box back.
Plus, you can get a free sample pack of
their favorite flavors with your first
purchase by going to the link in the
description below or heading to
drinklement.com/modernwisdom.
There's no code.
I usually care about the box more than
that. drink
drinklement.com/modernwisdism.
Thank you very much for tuning in. If
you enjoyed that clip, the full episode
in all of its glory,
waiting for you right here.
Go on, press it.