Ben Shapiro (51:58)
Well, meanwhile, Kanye west is back at it, and he is over on Twitter doing things again. Now, a wise man once said about Kanye west, live by the Kanye, die by the Kanye, that wise man was me. And that was in 2018. There are some who decided that, in fact, Kanye was a deeply wise and trustworthy individual and in fact, should be a hero to people on the right. Now, there are two things that are possible to say about Kanye West. One is that he's mentally ill, and he clearly is mentally ill. He clearly is bipolar. He's manic depressive. He now says that he's not manic depressive, that he's actually autistic. Okay, sure. Okay. Autism is now being used as a catch all term for pretty much any strange behavior out there, like all of it. I'd love to see a medical diagnosis. But if there's a mental problem, then he is not totally responsible for his actions, which might explain why he does evil things, but it's not responsible for those. The other possibility is that actually he's not mentally ill and that he ought to be taken seriously, which is an argument made by many people on the right. Okay, if he's not mentally ill and we ought to take him seriously, then he's evil and he's an evil person. Because I don't know what else to make of a person who trots his wife out stark naked in front of the cameras, has suggested starting a pornography company, shows pornographic pictures to people who work with him, and proclaims himself a Nazi. Those seem like not amazing behaviors. Well, he took 2x again today and was manically tweeting over and over and over. Everything from tweets about Bianca Censori, his nude wife, to Adolf Hitler. Quote, Hitler was so fresh, according to ye, who undoubtedly would have been murdered by Hitler. Quote, Call me Yadolf Yittler and your still wants to f It's this sort of genius that made him world famous. Obviously, I'm going to normalize talking about Hitler. The way they talking about killing n words has been normalized. When was kill? I'm just confused. When it was normalized to talk about killing n words by whom and why? Quote I'm cold when I feel an unce of feelings. O n c E a once of feelings. I assume it means ounce. I stand still and hold my eyes open like a psychopath till that feeling of feeling anything goes away. I have no heartstrings. People pull at your heartstrings to control people. Use your feelings against you. I can say Jew as much as I want. I can say Hitler as much as I want. Matter of fact, I do say it when I want. Well, I mean, I think we all have the capacity to say both Hitler and Jew as many times as we want, but, yeah, I think it's kind of what you say. By the way, he's now come out in favor of P. Diddy. So just in case, if you're wondering if there are any evil people, he's not siding with the alleged rapist. He's apparently in on that. One quote puff get one call a morning. Um, all right. Free puff. Um, okay. Very, very strong stuff from. From Kanye west this morning. At least he's saying the. At least he's saying the obvious part. Quote, I channeled Andrew Tate on a few of these tweets. Yeah, we know, my bro. We know, we know. So good. Good times. And he. He did have some commentary about his naked wife defending her being naked. Quote, anyone who's called my wife's Grammy look, a stunt is dumb and lame. Well, I mean, what else would you call it? The best characterization of it is a stunt. If she did it sincerely, then she has a screw lose. People don't walk around naked in public if they don't have a screw loose. Anyone who called my wife's Grammy look a stunt is dumb and lame, says Kanye West. Yes, you. She's been dressing naked for two years. Okay, first of all, I want to logic out what it means to dress naked. I feel like that's oxymoronic. She's been dressing naked for two years. That's. That's strange. I. Those are the op. Anyway, now all of a sudden, it tastes done. Every single on the planet. Wish they had her bravery body platform and access to money and a husband that supported they personal expression. There are a lot of things that had to converge for this moment to happen. Actually, it turns out that to be naked requires no things to converge. People do it all the time. It's crazy. From showering to babies having their diapers changed. It happens literally all the time without anything is converging. In fact, the fewest things in all of human history have to converge in order for people to be naked. The Bible opens with people being naked in a garden. Like, it turns out you don't need any preconditions whatsoever to be naked. It takes a civilization in order to get dressed. Okay, why is this important? The reason this is important is because a bunch of people took this Guy. Seriously. For years. For years. And when you sign up for the ride, you take the whole ride with the whole ticket. So perhaps people ought to be a little bit more discriminating about whom they choose to emulate as heroes. Transgressivism, violation of the norms. Sometimes that can be useful if the norm is bad. But that does not mean that all transgressive behavior is normal or decent, because it really, really is not. So solid stuff there from Ye. And we look forward to his new collab with Diddy, I suppose. Or at least some people will. Alrighty. Meanwhile, one of the. I've been informed that we need to do an analysis of the biggest hit on Amazon, Mr. Beast's show over on Amazon. So this is kind of fascinating. It's called Beast Games. And full disclosure, I know some of the people associated with making the show Beast Games is, I will say it's got like a 13% critics rating. It is highly watchable, like really watchable. It's kind of real life Squid Games. And there are a bunch of various sort of cultural analyses that have been done of Beast Games. The most common one that I've seen is that it's a critique of capitalism. First of all, let me explain. It is absolutely not a critique of capitalism. In fact, the setup for the show is the opposite of capitalism. For the setup is that a thousand contestants compete in physical, mental and social challenges for a chance to win a $5 million cash prize, a $1.8 million private island, and more. And so that's not capitalism because it's a definitionally a zero sum game. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. Capitalism is the opposite of a zero sum game. It's also not like capitalism in that it is it. It is not an iterative game, meaning you're in or you're out. The thing about capitalism is if you cheat somebody in a capitalist system, you can cheat one guy, but you really can't cheat like five. Because if you keep cheating people over and over, they stop doing business with you. It's one of the great disincentives to cheat people under capitalism. This is a point that's been made by Adam Smith, is that capitalism as practiced actually makes you more ethical in business because you need to give somebody a product that they want and it can't malfunction because if it malfunctions, they're not gonna buy from you again. So there are a bunch of distinctions between what you're watching here and capitalism. The left likes to think that capitalism is a zero sum game. That it's a bunch of people competing for a bag of cash. That's not what capitalism is. In fact, capitalism makes everybody richer. This is much more like communism where you have a bag of cash and then the question is just how that cash gets divided up. And predictably, when it comes to a bag of cash and how it gets divided up, it turns out that the people who are the most scurrilous and underhanded are the people who are going to be the most likely to have the DASHA on the water. And everybody else is going to get victimized by those people. It turns out that human nature is to maximize the return to you at the cost of somebody else. Unless all boats are rising right. That is just human nature. You're going to defend yourself and your family before you defend other people. That is just the way of human nature. Greed is a universal human phenomenon. Pretending it away doesn't make it go away. The great lie of communism is that if you have a grab bag of cash, magically greed will just disappear if you force everybody to take the same amount. And it's a lie. And it never works, because human nature is still human nature. The only thing that can get past human greed is mutual dependence, which is what capitalism creates. Free trade, mutual dependence, free exchange. That's the sort of stuff that creates better behavior and creates an incentive structure that leads you to channel your particular greed toward actually helping somebody else. Because you're not going to get what you want unless you give somebody else what they want. I've described capitalism as effectively forced altruism, and that's correct. So I'm putting that out there because there have been a bunch of articles that are basically suggesting that the Beast Games are a sort of critique of capitalism. That's only if you really, really don't understand capitalism. If you understand that this isn't capitalism, it's a grab bag of cash, then basically all of Beast Games can be reduced to a repeated iteration of the Prisoner's Dilemma. The Prisoner's Dilemma. For those who don't know game theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma is a situation in which you take two people, they've committed a crime together, and you put them in separate rooms. And then you tell each person that if they confess, then they will get a lower sentence. If they don't confess and the other guy confesses, they will get a higher sentence. And then the question is, how much do you trust your partner? That's all Beast Games is over and over and over. That's all Beast Games is. And what you find is that if people don't have a lot in common, if people don't know each other, if the game is not iterative, right, it only happens once. And if you cheat, you win. If that happens, you end up with the prisoner's dilemma where everybody has a sort of incentive to do the most self serving thing. Alrighty, so let's talk about what this game looks like. It's the prisoner's dilemma. So for those of you who don't know some game theory, basic game theory. Game theory is basically an attempt to quantify how decisions get made based on available possible outcomes. So the perfect example of a sort of game theory is prisoner's dilemma. So prisoner's dilemma is a situation where you have two guys who commit a crime together. One of them is brought into one room by the cops, the other is brought into another room by the cops. And they are given a series of options. Okay? They're each told you can confess or you can stay quiet. Now if you stay quiet and your partner confesses, that is the worst case outcome for you. You refuse to talk to the cops and your partner confesses, then you are going to get 10 years in prison and your partner gets zero because he gets the benefit. He flipped on you, but you didn't flip on anybody. So you get the maximum sentence. You get the 10 year sentence. If you both stay quiet, then you both go to jail for a year. If you both confess, then you're both going to jail for six years. So the question is, where are you going to end up? And the answer is it depends on how much you trust your partner. So here is that drawn out, right? You have player one over here. He has two options to confess or to stay quiet. Player two also has two options, to confess or to stay quiet. If they both confess, they both get six years. If they both stay quiet, they both get one year in prison. If you confess and the other guy stays quiet, then you get zero years and he gets 10 years. And the precise opposite is true. If your partner does that to you. So the most obvious outcome typically is that everybody sort of loses because you don't want the 10 year sentence. If you don't trust your partner a lot, that he's going to shut up. If he ain't your brother or something, you are immediately going to confess and so will he. And then you're going to end up in this box, right? That is the equilibrium. That's where everybody's going to end up, typically speaking. Okay, the reason that I bring this up is because when you look at sort of the outcome of these various games. They match that sort of human behavior. So much of this show is kind of fascinating just because it is a. It is a way of assessing, in real life, sort of Bayesian risk calculations. I want to go through some of them because, you know, again, I think people are reading the show wrong. They're reading it as sort of critique of culture. And there is some of that in here. They have a bunch of Gen Z morons who somehow are of the opinion that they're best friends with everybody. And so they keep getting screwed, like, over and over and over. They keep doing the thing where they stay quiet. And then the Gen Xer is like, I don't even know you, bro. I don't even know you, bro. And so the player who ends up staying quiet, the Gen Zer, ends up here in sort of the quiet box and ends up getting 10 years in prison. And meanwhile, the Gen Xer is like, I don't know you, bro. I'm gonna confess. And he ends up getting the benefit of that particular bargain. So the answer there is Gen Z'ers are naive about the world, and they've been misinformed as to how humanity actually works. Okay. But there are some other sort of interesting Bayesian situations that arise, your risk calculation situations that arise here. So let's go through some of them. The first episode involves the sacrifice of a team member. Okay, so this is the first challenge. The contestants are teamed up by row. One player from each row has to eliminate or sacrifice themselves so the rest of their row can move on. The last three rows standing that have not eliminated someone are all eliminated. Okay, so if everyone refuses to sacrifice themselves, then the entire row is eliminated. One person has to throw themselves on the grenade, for example. Now, as you'll see, many of the rows end up being eliminated. Three of the rows end up being eliminated because nobody sacrifices themselves, because why would you? Your expected outcome then is zero. And so here's what it looked like. One more thing. This game has already started, and it will not end until the last three rows. To eliminate someone will all be eliminated together. Only nine of the 12 rows will be moving on one. Click it.