Home 🏠 🔎 Search


Bad Transcripts
for the
Beat Your Genes Podcast & More

Episode 41: Why is academia so left wing
an auto-generated transcript


To get a shareable link to a certain place in the audio,
hover your mouse over the relevent text,
right click, and "copy link address"
(mobile: long press & copy link address)
 


all right good evening everybody this Nate G dr. Lyle how're you doing today good how you doing I'm doing pretty good so all right the title of our podcast today is why is academia so left-wing and in in kind of researching this I know in my experience I had always experienced in college that the professors that I had were always very liberal very left-wing always trying to stuff in their opinion with regrets politics when the lesson came into play and as far as you know as early as January of last year there was a paper out that actually explored the the role of the professors and how left-wing they actually are and I think it was it was I forgot the name of the Journal of the behavioral science journal or something like that and it's very very interesting to read is the journal the behavioral and brain sciences and the art was a political diversity will improve social psychological science so it's a very interesting topping so I'd like to hear your thoughts dr. Lyle on on this on this conundrum yeah it's it's not something that I that I've studied much of I've it's been it's partly the subject of a it's a part of an extraordinary book written by Steven Pinker who's one of our most brilliant human beings on earth and he in a book called the blank slate and the subtitle is the modern denial of human nature I don't recommend that you pick this up for light reading this is this is heavy going and it's a very long book you know this is a tome and this is this is a is an opus that that Pinker wrote in the late 90s out of his frustration with with essentially academia and the some leading figures in academia like Stephen Jay Gould and some other some other individuals at Harvard who were absolutely determined to drown out evolutionary psychology so he he he went to a lot of trouble to sort of analyze his way through this and to demonstrate the tremendous defense that that that the this is hotshots in academia and these very high positions we're trying to stop the the thinking of evolutionary psychology but that he didn't really so he had his own ax to grind there and he made you know fifty brilliant points as is consistent with the what you would expect out of Steven Pinker but I don't think he explained why the the liberal bent in academia is widespread and pervasive as opposed to this sort of top-down frustration that he had with these with the leaders of academia at Harvard the I think I'd I would begin my analysis I mean I certainly thought about this for off and on for many years I was obviously I spent what four years undergrad and seven years of grad school so I spent a decade in academia actually more than I spent a couple years teaching after that at the university level so yeah I spent essentially my entire 20s and part of my 30s in the academic world and academia is is without a doubt very liberal and it's in its bent and it's assumed that everybody in there is liberal and so if a person is conservative you would never know it because they're going to keep their mouth shut the I was just reading some statistics before we got on just to get a feel for and apparently four percent of academia is what you would consider themselves to be conservative there is going to be where I stand so that people aren't guessing and I'm not trying to signal it from a very young age but libertarians made a lot of sense to me it doesn't mean that I agree with every policy or position of the Libertarian Party but the general concept of libertarianism always made a lot of sense to me and then later when I learn learned about the the evolution of politics and I could then see as I talked about in a previous podcast that there wasn't there wasn't an in-principle perfect solution between the fundamental conflict of share not share then it you know my interest in defending or promoting either a more liberal or more conservative view kind of went by the wayside so I look at the the issues of politics more dispassionately these days than I did when I was 22 years old and however it is an interesting curiosity to to look at at our most most respected and most most intellectually challenging places to go go to school and to try to learn are uniformly almost uniformly there's a few exceptions obviously but essentially uniformly liberal so this calls into question why this would be when the obvious answer from their standpoint would be well we're more intelligent and we're right and so therefore of course because that's true that's why we all think the way we do a more depth in-depth analysis of course will indicate that that is not true so now we have to look at the situation and we have to say well now wait a second if they're not right because they're just more intelligent why why does academia have a very strong left bias oh why is this the case and so I begin the my investigation of this with the obviously the concept that all behavior is being driven by cost-benefit analysis so we start there by realizing that the the behavior that organisms do is being directed by by thinking or information processing or computations that are simply telling the organism that this is in their best interest so so this is a little little eerie for people to think about but the eerie thing is is that your brain actually operates in a way that isn't necessarily consistent with quotes the truth it's consistent with what's in your best interest and so you will actually have thoughts and feelings that may not reflect objective features of reality but they in fact reflect what is in your personal genetic best interest now this will help explain for example the reason why a lot of people may believe in will may believe in supernatural things like a deity and the reason why they might believe that is isn't because the objective evidence is convincing to them but in fact it is in their genetic best interest to believe in that and so the system is sophisticated enough to to realize that you do not want to get kicked out of your group and be some kind of a leper and lose a bunch of status and so it is it is nimble enough to have a person still believe in something where other parts of the analytic engine may be grinding away at the problem in suspecting that it's not true okay and so because the brain is not a essentially totally integrated that you have independent neural circuits working a person can have different areas of the analytic engine coming up with somewhat and sometimes contradictory conclusions and so that individual can be sitting on two different suspicions about what the truth is but one of those may be dominant and it may it may be a one that is logically inconsistent with with underlying logical analysis but it's in but it is in the organisms best interests as it surveys its adaptive landscape and realizes it's not going to get laid unless it believes a certain thing so this is a this is an interesting and curious way of looking at human nature yet it's not all that surprising so for example the same way we we visited this before in other areas around mitting for example a man may feel like he believes and think and feel that he is in love with a girl that he just met you know four or five weeks ago and this even though he's got other parts of his brain that are recognizing that she is not actually a para blonde quality that she is five or ten percent or three percent or eight percent or sixteen percent below paragon quality and he is not going to be quote in love with her three months from now but that feeling and the thinking and what comes out of his mouth and what emanates from a great deal of his behavior is that he's crazy about her and he loves her T etc and so he says these things and that is a part of an evolutionary arms race that has evolved in response to females trying to not have this happen to them and therefore look for men who appear to be relatively aloof and not that that interested and therefore not putting up that much energy in order to get into their pants and and thereby signaling to the female that they are only of casual mating strategy interest so as females have evolved better and better detection mechanisms for finding men that are playing the casual mating strategy and trying to cloak it the men have evolved greater and greater capacity to to act their way around the female detection mechanisms and in doing so one of the most effective ways is self deception so it turns out that men can think and feel things that other parts of their brain know are not true and in doing so they can reproduce their genes more prolifically than men that can't do that so we can see it is quite possible for people to believe in things that are not true in order for to advance their genetic interests now now what I'm going to do is I'm going to so now I'm going to talk my way down through what makes sense me as to why academia may be quite liberal the it's going to turn out that that academia by its very nature is indicating it's indicating a hierarchical achievement in other words we are smarter than you we are the teachers you are the learners and here at the highest part of the teaching of human which is no longer kindergarten grade school junior high or high school and we're not even talking about the junior high now or excuse me a junior college now we're all the way to the big bad universities and so the big bad universities what we're going to have is people that teach there got there because they out-compete it a bunch of people so they have climbed dominance hierarchy that is associated with significant achievement intellectually the so one of the issues here is that of course the reason that they're climbing these dominance hierarchies is for the same reason that people climb any dumb and hierarchy and that is that they're seeking status and that status can be converted into various and sundry survival and reproductive chips but let's for the moment we're going to ignore the females in academia we can we can explain them just fine as well but what we're going to be there well yeah let's ignore the females in acting a typical man well I would just want to point out when I was in academia I ignored the males in academia and I was exclusively focused on the females that were in academia so it all does up so it balances out indeed ok so now just from the standpoint for the simplicity of seeing the how this logic would work if we were to look at males in academia we would say well why are they there and why are they doing what they're doing and what they're trying to do is they're trying to do something that the village finds valuable and they're trying to do it as as well and as brilliantly as possible in order to and a hierarchy in order to display that they have better genes than their competitors so these are so Academical credentials are akin to Peacock's feathers they are they are a method for displaying low mutation loads so it isn't it isn't that academics generally have to do anything brilliant what they have to be is they have to be smart and they have to be diligent as hell you have to you have to have some social skill jump through hoops not piss people off not tell anybody you're as conservative not let anything slip in other words you have to jump and jump and jump through a bunch of Hoops for years as you climb this hierarchy etc etc I diligently turn in your little grant applications on time and have a nice tidy little study that you're proposing that doesn't upset anybody you know there's a you've got to be a pretty good clerk to be an academic so the occasionally somebody's you know there's brilliance and academia of course as you would expect but mostly there isn't mostly what there is is a bunch of pedestrian high IQ clerks that are that are making sure that they knock down their $100,000 a year now this is where we get into the rub that what they're attempting to do is they're attempting to display genetic superiority however it's going to turn out that in in the Stone Age that the that there are cues of genetic superiority which are obvious to people and so it's going to be dominant in in status etc one way or the other so it's going to be that for example with respect to males it's going to be size strength intelligence and particularly hunting ability so there's going to be essentially income associated with this you know along with sheer sexual attractiveness so this is this is going to be a big deal now it's going to turn out that as soon as we get to agriculture and we start to have private property it's going to turn out that property is whether its land or whether it's other cow roll is going to be valuable and that the valuable miss is going to be potentially passed on to your children and therefore give them advantages in competition in future generations there's a reason why you know it's quote valuable is because it's valuable for the it enhances the survival reproductive potentially the individual that holds it and so suddenly now we have a new way not entirely new but it's a new way of assessing the genetic value or the genetic genetic ranking of an individual and that is how much wealth are they producing and how much wealth do they hold and so it it this now becomes an enormous ly important what we're going to call Fitness indicator so Fitness indicators are are of an animal are attributes that you can see in their behavior or their physical presence that indicate the relative level of gene quality relative to their competitors so in peacocks it's how they're peacock feathers how shiny are they and how how extraordinary is the plumage the what's interesting about the plumage of a peacock is it is inherently expensive so it makes it difficult for you to both be alive and have a tremendous amount of peacocks shiny peacock feathers the reason for this is that you are a walking target for predators so in order for you to both have phenomenal plumage and still be alive you must have a lot of really good genes in there good genes for your nervous system eyesight hearing etc muscles reflexes to have a coat shiny you must have a lot of energy in order to do a lot of grooming if you don't if you don't look sick you you're the and the plumage is very very shiny and vibrant then you have a low parasite load these are all you know this is it like a big it's owning a 17,000 square foot house boy you got a lot of upkeep you know I mean you got a big five acres gardener all kinds of marble floors to make this thing to have this thing continued to be kept up this is indicating a tremendous amount of gene quality this is this is actually what we're going to call the handicap principle so this was all figured out by a MIT sahabi in the 1970s over in Israel the so the the more sort of wealth the person has and that they're carrying around and that they're managing etc this is a yeah I think we can all agree that if I tell you I have a company with 3,000 employees in it and that I that I have you know I don't know 186 thousand square feet of office space for these employees and they've all got etc URI and I'm the CEO and I started this thing you are thinking whoa that guy accumulated a lot of resources the world didn't just pony up that kind of resources he must do something extremely well and he must be extraordinary organizer and he must have great insights into the market and he must work extremely hard in other words he's got to have a lot of brains and a lot of talent in order to be in that position now if I tell you but what I do is I run a little stand at a at a farmers market every weekend where I sell little buttons that people have and I and I make about $150 a day and I do that you know three four days a week and that's what I do and I live in a trailer at the back of my mom's house then then you realize well wait a second you know I mean you may be a genius artist and I want to take a look at what you're painted but I'm pretty sure that you're not as fit as the guy that has the big company so this is these are what we're going to call fitness indicators and it's going to be obvious to everybody just in the same way that everybody likes to were not everybody but many people that are threatened like to put their heads in the sand and deny that there's an objectivity of beauty people you know many people many compensators many social scientists they have loved that they have made a war on the concept of beauty and it's the idea that everyone is inherently as beautiful as everybody else and that standards of beauty are are given to us by the media that was the standard operating line incidentally in academia throughout the 1970s 80s and 90s now that absolutely crashed on the rocks as the academics in in evolutionary psychology tore that concept to pieces and it is in tatters and in ruins and nobody with a brain in any honesty believes it we now know that beauty is extremely objective we know that any two raters male raters anywhere on the planet rating females of any race will rate them over 0.9 correlation coefficient and they will rate them two guys from from Cameroon that have never seen an Asian women okay will rate Asian women exactly in the same way that Asian men rate them who will rate them exactly in the same way the Caucasian men will rate them in other words the standards of beauty are worldwide and objective which is you know interesting evolutionary psychologists would not be surprised at this now the so in the same way as people have tried to deny that there is objectivity and beauty which there is tremendous objectivity and beauty I'm not going to say it's a hundred percent because obviously it's not 100 percent but it is extraordinarily high in the same way it is also objective that people that amass more resources are objectively superior to those who amassed less okay they have better brains better organization they understand reality more accurately and they are able to manage their movements in their time and energy and the resources in order to accumulate more resources so anybody that's making a million dollars a year and I'm not saying anybody because could be some I don't know some somebody that inherited some crooked operation from his uncle okay and doesn't take any brains at all but the point is is that in principle if we were to take people that make a million dollars a year in this country those people are more competent on average than the people to make a hundred thousand and the people that make a hundred thousand are in more competent on average than the people that make 50 and the people that make 50 are more competent on average than the people that make twenty etcetera etc okay so the correlation coefficient between competence and income average is obvious and it is robust okay so that being the case it's going to turn out that our friends in academia have a problem and that is that they have actually instituted a hierarchy that is independent of the free market so it academics are paid on salary basis that are sort of organized negotiated through Union situations this is not a free market so if you are a superstar you know social psychologist god knows what that would be but if you were you are not going to get five hundred thousand a year to teach at the University of Tulsa because they just don't care they need it social psychologists if you want to go live and teach at Tulsa and you're a good social psychologist you might just be able to get a job there and they're going to pay a hundred eighteen thousand dollars a year that's what it's going to be so academics essentially as they are displaying their peacock feathers their peacock feathers with respect to the most obvious and glaring and legitimate indicator of genetic fitness are faring okay pretty good okay nobody nobody would argue that making 120 thousand dollars a year as a berkeley professor is is bad you know ii mean it's like hey you did pretty well but did you do as well as the guy that's making twenty five million dollars a year across the bay in Silicon Valley no no you didn't okay and so as a result and guess guess who does not think your achievement of becoming a full professor Berkeley in sociology is his fancy is making 25 million dollars a year at your company in Silicon Valley Nate I want to give you one guess who isn't going to buy that those are equal how about the 30 year old 10 okay that the extremely hot female is not going to buy the fact that I am supposed to consider those two things to be equivalent thanks for biology she can help her biology can't help it her biology and reason about that you the academic have placed yourself in an essentially uncompetitive environment that is an artificial environment that is not particularly competitive that you don't have to be so great that what you have to be is sort of an ass-kissing clerk okay you don't have to do anything that brilliant or great and most of them don't and yet they have a hierarchy that says oh I got to full professor well so you did where's your great achievement like does the world really care and they become obsessed with how many citations they have and how many publications they have really who cares the free market actors in fact there's even a congressman that that gives out the fleece award for some of the places he finds completely ridiculous when they were saying about a dung beetle and I I can't believe you're you're old enough to remember that that was centered William Proxmire and that was that was famous he gave up the Golden Fleece Awards to academics who wasted the most public money is beautiful the now so now we see the issue so we go back to the cost-benefit analysis of all behavior which is going to include the thinking and complications that are underneath it and a corollary is for me in looking at human nature is when you don't understand something when you don't understand something about people or why it is that they do what they do always look for status always look for status is the reason why they're doing it because other motivation are going to be obvious like why is everybody standing under the tree answer it's hot outside okay we can we can quickly infer why it is that they're doing what they're doing but when we can't when we are puzzled about something the place to look is status because there's going to be some quirk in in the social landscape about why it is that they are doing what they're doing because they think that it's going to optimize their status so why does a scientist who has a PhD in biology and is actually not a flunkey PhD but he's really smart why does he you know try to get the Templeton Prize you know because he's he's going to believe in it you know say that he believes in intelligent design rather than natural selection answer he's looking for status okay he he cannot he cannot impress the girls or whoever he wants to impress in in another coalition so he goes to a less competitive coalition and will seek out the genes there and that's why they'll do what they'll do okay now so with respect to academics and being liberal what they must do is they must have an argument that rejects the the underlying legitimacy of the of the fitness indicator dominance hierarchy that exists in a free-market the fitness indicator the dominance hierarchy that exists in a free market is how much money do you make okay now is it a perfect indicator no but we've already been through this it is a definitely legitimate indicator there is no question as a correlation coefficient is strongly positive with respect to income and genetic fitness and so as a result the world believes in it and you're not going to talk the world out of it and you will not talk the hot chicks out of it there is no way and so the what what do you do if you're an academic what you're going to do is you are going to try to undermine the legitimacy of that dominance hierarchy and so what you're going to say is Oh capitalism you know the the capitalist cheat and they lie and they fleece the people and they're exploiters cetera et cetera that's what you're going to get and it's going to be a never-ending stream of this kind of drivel as they as they seek to undermine the sexual legitimacy of fitness indicators in the free market being wealth they don't want any part of it okay and I believe that that is an undiscussed typically undiscussed but absolutely core motivational principle for why the by the typical academic is a liberal mm-hmm I don't think that they have a choice as to how they think basically their minds are shaped to try to figure out what's in their best interest and what they figure out is hey the we have to undermine the legitimacy of this other hierarchy that exists in the culture and the way we're going to do it is we're going to say that their that they lie and they cheat and that that the fitness indicators that they that appear to be being demonstrated are not legitimate and that is why and ironically it is their hierarchy that is not legitimate so there is a there's a lot I would argue there's a lower correlation in the fitness of the genetic fitness of the success in academia then there is that in the success in commerce so there's a meaning that that if you've succeeded in academia meaning you publish you know eighteen hundred papers and or whatever the number is and yeah we've done fellowship after fellowship it doesn't it doesn't translate as you being more competent than the brand-new professor whereas in the real world if you you build you know five five fortune 500 companies you definitely are more competent than the small business owner who just started a business yeah no question yeah the yeah so academia is a is a sloppy and not a very good fitness indicator it is it's a Fitness indicator certainly people that rise to the top of academia are are tend to be more competent than the people that do not succeed in act I mean I don't I don't doubt that that's true but it's a real sloppy correlation it is not as good a correlation and you know wealth is not a great is not a perfect correlation either obviously there's a lot of luck involved there's a lot of there's a lot of issues that are involved in in success in in the business arena but it is a it is absolutely a legitimate Fitness indicator and and that fact is that when someone has been very successful in business it shines so much louder than the success in academia the the girls cannot help but see this who would we rather be with okay the 38 year old you know associate professor who's up for tenure and might get his salary bumped up to one hundred three thousand dollars okay or the guy who is who has his own jet like there's no comparison and and of course we're going to find some girls that are going to go for the professor all things being equal but we won't find very many of them and everybody knows it and so I believe deep down in the the academics brain they understand that they are competing in the culture of their hierarchies is a competitive hierarchy with the broader hierarchy of the marketplace and they are determined to undermine the legitimacy of that and through that they they have a very strong lean towards statism mmm-hmm now in terms of the politics via the genetics of politics I share not share that we talked about a couple episodes and again you know near the beginning of our show to some extent it seems like like you know you got some professors there that working their asses off and some of them become like Malcolm Gladwell with it but write a bunch of books get a lot of Fame and some of them work their asses off and they don't get that far right you can seem like it's just kind of hit or miss yeah actually almost no academics are ever successful outside of academia in any meaningful way I don't was glad well in academic and no way what uh no he was not well was just a journalist and I look like one no he wants to be one you know he Gladwell would go around and interview academics and through interviewing academics he he got ahold of a lot of really old ideas out of Social Psychology from the 1970s and 80s and then when he wrote those up you know he's a good writer and they were interesting and they they made Malcom Gladwell famous and make him look like a genius when really what he was was a was a you know a journalist that when interviewed some academics and a lot of those ideas are real mediocre Malcolm will save elderly with that yeah so we'll say we'll save that whole I save that for another day sure yeah well yeah and and now with the emergence of TED Talks it's a possibility for a lot of academics to get a lot of status especially social media world right right yeah so and you know what I'm not I'm not in any way well I'm kind of down on academia just because I feel like the whole thing is uh it all winds up being heavily funded in and is sort of its own Enclave living off government money and so it winds up having certain ideas this is this is not sort of the freedom of inquiry and open ideas that was envisioned by Thomas Jefferson you know that is not what American academia is American academia as has a very very definite Paul that is cast over academia there are ideas that are that are acceptable to think and they're ideas that are not acceptable to think and there is and there's a great deal of conscious deliberate denial about what the truth is truths that are uncomfortable for for the left-wing and that that is where academia lives and and so it is it is it is not particularly at Merl in that way that doesn't mean that there aren't all enclaves in academia where brilliant work isn't being done there is and and I would say I don't know if this is true but I believe that I probably have a particularly negative take on this being a psychologist because psychology is right in the heart of human values and also in in line of information which is subject to debate and actually causes a great deal of stress about those debates whereas if you are in particle physics you would not be or if you're in chemistry or you are in microbiology you would not be discussing and and be spokespersons for issues that were that were controversial in human life and in human affairs so nobody ever asked their the opinion of a physicist what they thought about beauty okay and then but the party line has to be that it's all subjective no but they would ask a psychologist because aesthetics would be an important part in emotional reactions and mating behavior and romance and love hell these things are should be down right in the heart of psychology so psychology is sitting inside a place where there would be a tremendous amount of motivation to to essentially hide the truth and and to be intellectually dishonest and I believe that the intellectual dishonesty in the social sciences is probably much greater than in the hard sciences mm-hm yeah I've often talked with my with my dad about kind of a similar topic in the health industry my dad's a structural engineer and you know you know we've talked and he said well can't you just read the conclusions of a study and just like make decisions from that another longtime we're talking I said well well you could if it was as known as it was with structures you know you don't have somebody coming out there saying well you can build a house in it in a Pentagon and hope that it's not going to not going to uh you know fall down and then people say oh let's give that a little legitimacy let's see maybe maybe it might work you never know if the people living in the house believe it's going to work it might work no whereas in the health industry that's not often the case is there's a lot of nonsense out there yes the health industry health and medicine has a different set of problems and it's not it's not the problems of the social sciences and the humanities in academia and the problems they have is that they're crooked and that there's a tremendous amount of money from that is pouring into to the science in order to shape the outcomes of the science favorable for specific you know industrial applications so that's why you can't trust the science and medicine and it's so bad that that is partially what gave rise to the Cochrane Collaboration you know 25 years ago as legitimate scientists were incredibly frustrated by their own literature knowing that they couldn't trust it and that industry had infiltrated that industry you know had infiltrated science to a degree that it was it did it was corrupted that's still renowned Cochrane the Krakow and collaboration itself is likely to be significantly corrupted accordingly sources that I've talked to the but at least you know is a bold attempt to at least try to get a clean snapshot and I believe a great many of the people that are that volunteer their time for the Cochrane Collaboration are absolutely upstanding as hell but but as it becomes more influential it's more likely to be corrupted this is exactly the history of academia of the of the sciences in the United States so that we start out with land-grant universities working with farmers etc trying to help innovation in for the good of all but as soon as we wind up with a highly respected process called science and with academia at the top of that now it becomes worth buying okay and so now now industry groups will infill rate and they will then have quote scientists set at fancy universities come up with conclusions that are favorable to their product and now we get a dirty system so yeah that's another problem with academia that doesn't have anything to do with our present discussion okay yes problem yeah yeah where's the social psychology don't have any of you cell yeah yeah there is no psychiatry I guess you do it's it's kind of a problem where where the guy to remember about title three open up a whole can of worms sure Sakaya trees the whole conclusions from Sakaya tree had been totally up for sale and they've been they've been bought by industry in my opinion i better be sticking that in there from time to time and and so as a result they're not legitimate in my opinion i could just try to just see my license under challenge right now at the board of psychologists the but yeah so this is this is a sort of a systemic problem when a sector of society gets a great deal of status and therefore potential influence over consumers you can better believe that it's going to get bought and so that that has certainly happened in sort of medical arena of academia and they they're not going to suffer the kind of social social myopia that we see in the social sciences they're nicely yeah I don't think that I don't think anybody doing research in medical schools on Prozac you know could care less about thinking about Republican or Democrat or conservative or liberal I don't think it really hardly enters their mind they're they're they're off looking for patents and to to get fees from industry groups for what it is that they do and to to add they're already you know exceptionally good salaries some some consulting fees and I'm saying so there there's a whole is a lot more thing so it seems like there's one more opportunity for statuses so they don't fall into the feelings that they establish for themselves in academia yeah seems like the lining result for that soon absolutely humanity to Social Sciences and academia have nowhere else to go so they have to try to impress everybody that that their hierarchy is is the is the legitimate hierarchy of fitness indicators and that everybody else is is just profit seeking crooks and and therefore that any success in in commerce should be heavily discounted by the hot what the hot man or women bit that that person is competing for and just like the CEO versus the guy who sells buttons at the farmers market yeah there's a big difference so speaking of which I was going to get you a button for your birthday dr. Bob but you know what I don't think I'm gonna do that anymore I know you're a Virgo so you probably wouldn't yes oh my god I can't believe you said that oh well oh all right well anything that was very letter this what Janet no this is good right now looks we're going to take some listener comments and questions next week we have some questions from that we have leftover from a few episodes back and we've got a whole lot of them so I'll get to that we'll get to as many as we can if anybody's listening right now you have any questions comments concerns if you'd like to opine just shoot me an email and we'll we'll try to get it on the air so duck oh well thank you very much again we really appreciate it pleasure and I'll talk to you next week Nate
Back to the top
🏃     👖




Artist