Almost time for the bell, how many options will you sell? Fire up your platform, get ready to enter But first, let's get the mindset centered Hey, hey, listen, have success, find what works for you And forget Jesus, what we're about Time to dismiss greed process, not the money And the profits will flow like honey, power our lives Let's start the show, come on trade hackers, get ready to go Zero day options, time to make bank Get locked and loaded, then be ready to play Hey What's up everyone, welcome to Power Hour Live Thursday April 4th, blood is in the streets, my friends Blood is in the streets Yes, I'm excited, Anil Red's my favorite color So, I didn't do as good as some of you all But I got smoked out of some of my price action trades up here I said I was just going to trade the morning Book some profits before the Fed heads started speaking I stayed small but just kind of scaled in Won a couple of them and then got smoked out of a few So down about 2,500 total on those I was just trading four lots But my early Rick hit 35% in my challenge portfolio Vicks started contracting a little bit So it didn't qualify by the time of late Rick entry So just the one in the challenge portfolio That was good for 2,100 and then I Discretionary in my other account Took the late Rick Closed four of five of those For about a $3,200 profit and I still have one on Which is this one here So if it closes below 5,200 I'll take max profit on that last one Which will be good for another 2,500 Of course NDX out of bounds So that one's going to be a loser That's about it for me my friends I'm just glad to see Vicks sniffing 16 So SPX is down A little over 1%, 1.1 Down day is if it's down more than 0.6 But not over 1.2% So I'll be letting my bots roll For down day power hour Which Trunch 1 will come in In about 3 minutes Looking for the $4 strikes 2-1 calls to puts So that is my plan So right now Trunch 1 qualifies But if we make another flush lower It'll be out below that 1.2% So it would not qualify So it could be a situation where Trunch 1 qualifies But Trunch 2 or 3 might not If we keep going down we'll see Didn't do any futures trading today Importantly did not see that one coming Apparently Mr. Mester opened his mouth Said something Saw a couple little headlines on financial juice So let's see we'd be at the 51.95, 51.70s So 25 wide 25 wide with some call skew I like it So my Trunch 1 will start firing In 3, 2, 1 Lift off Should start trying to come in here Going down, now we're below So now it's not going to qualify We're down 1.3% So I'm going to let the bots make the decision Of course it depends on where trade steward has this It's going to be a little bit different than What I'm showing here Depending on where it has the open Bounces back up above 1.2% Still in my window it could still fire But Out of bounds for now I do still have one put from my earlier trade That I bought for 20 cents And it's at $16 Just going to hold that little guy For now How high can we go? 1.4% So my rut hedge from yesterday Was up nicely Now it's back in the This is the one from today The one from yesterday Went back into the valley After being up a couple thousand Unfortunately That's the way it goes sometimes $60 And you bought it at where, Elliot? This one was from my Tractions that I was trading I looked at my order I got in at 20 cents And it's at $15 Pretty close on this one $100 more bucks I'm going to go ahead and take off my last rick runner I'm going to go ahead and book it Still going down, Vicks above 16 Let's go baby So that one's gone Let's see I guess Chad decided not to Participate with us today Didn't hear from He's pretty nasty I mean Keep in mind though He's only down 0.8% on the day So a little perspective too Or just at the lows of the last couple of days So It's not like he can't keep going Let's see what the bloodiest stocks are DJT, AMD Square Nothing over 7% lower though Still some green Still got some stocks in green Meta's up 2% Coming down It was up more Bitcoin up 4% Gold new all time high But just up a little bit VXX I've been looking at that Volatility on that's getting high I might I might start a VXX position here By the end of the day Start small And scale into more If we get some follow through on this And that's a big nasty Big nasty red candle Yeah my PMM positions are Set up Well for this I mean nothing Great Remember we're only not even down 1% here Definitely create some opportunity to add to So my time Flies Scrap is off Let's see I'm going to go ahead and close my April 19 Time fly I don't know where this thing is trading Bouncing all over the place Filled at 315 on the diagonal April 19 22 This butterfly is bouncing All over this place I don't know what it's trading at VXX hit a high of 16.35 All right Filled at 490 on that fly Just posted that Excuse me butterfly channel What's going on here Dick K is trying to bet me on something VXX is outside the Bollinger Bands Yeah I'll take that bet I think we go lower tomorrow I'll take that bet I'm still 2 barbecues down to you Should we just make a double or nothing here? You want to go for 4 or nothing? Short premium trades Coming back to center All right you're on Dick K You know I've won the last 4 bets against you I just You didn't take the other side of them I have witnesses though I bet you a couple times you weren't on here So I'm I'm kind of on a hot streak to be honest There ain't no bounce off the lows Needless to say Short butterflies are not going to be in play today About 5175 Trading for 50 cents I mean I want to do something I feel like I need to do something Something small I tried to get filled on some Short calls up here On that first little bounce and then it ran away from me Maybe we'll get a big M-O-C number At the end of the day If we start pushing new lows In SPX but the VIXX Doesn't push new highs I might consider Trying to catch a little falling knife With some puts The news pick up so quick They are fast on their news Little typo though Barbecue futures Are juiced right now What are you guys doing? Is anybody doing anything? My long put that I bought for 10 cents is now We're $21 If we break lower your buying puts I might sell those to you 1.4% from the open What do we got here? Is it a 3 sigma move? Maybe 4? Alright I'll try to sell that put 4 I'm going to put 25 bucks in there In case we make another flush I'm my own man Dick K I do what I want As long as she gives me permission I'm about to sell Dick K some puts If we break lower again The bet is wherever we close today My bet is that we close lower Than that tomorrow Not sure I've ever bought a put for 20 cents And sold it for $22 It's going to hit my $25 limit Hit it 25 bucks Let's see if this vicks If not I'm going to try to Catch a bottom S&P down 1% NASDAQ down 1.8 1.18 Russell down almost 1 Dow down a little over 1 So all 4 indices about the same I'd love to see this rut head It goes side line to side line today It was way up here Up a couple thousand now it's down the valley Let's get to the other side I just need I just need about 30 more points at a rut To the downside To get out of the valley 1.5% from the open Been a long time since we've seen that Yeah that one should be back to center It's profitable But to hit my profit target For To get out for like $44.61 So it's got Like you said 43 days So I'll be taking that off next week Alright so we ticked a new low Vicks did not tick a new high We've got 40 minutes to go I'll give it I'm going to give it a little bit more time I want to see another flush BitK, did you buy some puts yet? That's my indicator I got to sell it to them Be sure to let me know I mean bear markets are so much more fun Aren't they? I mean we're not in a bear market Don't get me wrong But bear days We'd have to get down To 4,211 To be in a bear market 20% lower 4,200 So we got some room Before the media We're in a bear market So my remaining time fly Looks like it's up Somewhere between $3,600 It's not quite to profit target Alright SPX Creeping back down towards lows Hedgehogs doing well Yeah you're due to give some of that back I think Can't keep all that Spread the wealth, BitK Alright here we go New lows Vicks not Not pushing I don't like this little grind lower If I'm going to sell puts I need some capitulation I need a flush And then a rip back up My trader account Is out of it to draw down Thanks to that Rick today New equity Highs on that account So all of my Accounts are right under Or at My futures ones down a little bit From its Very peak Actually it's a little bit down Alright here we go 16.4 Let's see where this thing goes Push push push baby 155 Vicks up to 16.5 Let's see if that's all it had 30 minutes to go my friends Still got 30 minutes Nasdaq down 1.4% My 51.90 Puts That I sold at 25 bucks are now 34 Hanging around in the 95 delta Yeah where is Krish Krash There he is Nasdaq Approaching 100 points to go To 18,000 Vicks still climbing No doubt Kreen That's all Pelosi No surprise gold is not pushing today I guess bitcoin is really The new inflation hedge Hello can we go All sectors red Still got some green stocks Metta still holding on Tesla still up Well off their highs but Still green for the day We gotta have We gotta have everything red Really get this thing moving Yeah I'll give it till tomorrow Meach I told you that's why I only did one lot Because there's you know we could have trouble That must have been someone else Never following Meach again New lows 51.53 New highs and Vicks These little stair step downs Are the dangerous ones You're trying to get long that is VXX yeah I'm gonna be Let's see let's take a look So we really got 15 days We got 43 days in VXX I'd go to the 43 The weeklies aren't great They're pretty wide I'll look at something like this Like the 1412 in the May 3rd cycle I just I think we're gonna get some follow-through To the downside tomorrow Alright I'm gonna do a little starter position in VXX Alright I just posted that VXX trade In the option selling Are you gonna get Vicks 17 I did have a little spike above 17 On February 13th Other than that We haven't seen Vicks 17 since October I don't know White Tiger Never know I don't think it's a flash I think I think we're gonna have at least some Decent two-sided action Look at this movement SPX It's October right I mean that's just Insane Compared to just a visual of the price action That right I mean we had a nice little run up there From March to July Of 23 But You know most Usually don't have that kind of Parabolic straight up move I mean it's not unprecedented By any means but Might be time for some two-sided action As opposed got to smoke out these By the Dippers About time they got kind of lulled to sleep By the buy in the dip Every pullback just buy the dip So we have to crush their dreams And then we can Get back to normal market Quote unquote normal I thought maybe we See move like this after the Fed Actually reduced rates But I just don't I just think this inflation Thing is not dead Five minutes till MOC My trades will mostly be Based on the Overnight VIX move So I'm not sure what I'll do tomorrow yet Alright maybe we put it in the bottom but I'm not gonna play it See what MOC brings us I mean that just A big bar just feels like a little bit of Capitulation at the top Short-term top anyway And Dark Avengers yeah I mean My challenge portfolio it's set To do whatever it does As far as my other trading though Just kind of have to wait and see That's MP down 1.2% From yesterday's close down 1.72% From Today's open Alright MOC number in one minute I leave them on Fed day I'll turn them off But that's my only real main No trade filter But I'm always monitoring too So I'm not just Leaving them on and not paying attention Alright listening for Our Market on close number Here in just a few seconds 3.3 billion buy side Going long 3.3 billion buy side Initial reaction after the buy side Number a little dip See if we get our rip It's gotta be some End of day buyers stepping in Yeah E. Allison on a big move like that Enough credit On the end of day fly So the 55s right now for example Are trading for Not even a dollar maybe a dollar So on the MOC I take 6 of my 10 off at a 5 Point move so I got long at 5207 So if it gets up to 5212 I'll sell 6 of my 10 I'll ride the remaining ones Into the close No bounce come on where's my Where's my MOC bounce It's coming down Gonna need a bounce I'm gonna get stopped Nice Tom That's awesome that deserves a Flame Anybody else on MOC with me Elliot I know you're on it Meach Great Meach is on it we're gonna lose Come on 5 minutes to go Vicks got up to 16.92 back down to 16.39 Tesla and meta We're both green Well we're back down Not Get any follow through on that bounce 3 minutes to go I had never been stopped out Until A couple weeks ago on an MOC and I got stopped out Looks like I'm gonna get stopped out again A few minutes to go I always put it at 10 points Away so I got in it 07 So it's at 5202 Or I'm sorry D197 MOC winner This thing's gonna close near its lows TS trade You may want to scroll through the channel You'll see a lot of people Made money on this move I made money on a couple ricks Ended up to down 1200 On my price actions after that Long put paid me Pretty good day Nothing earth shattering New opportunities is the biggest thing With the Vicks back above 16 Got to wait for the close to see Where the line in the sand is For me and Dick K There it is Just above the lows 5147 0.27 0.27 5147.26 Alright Dick K It's on It is on Alright tomorrow Is April 5th Friday so we'll be streaming live in the morning For zero DTE And then we'll be back For power hour Alright all Everybody have a fantastic night See you later


All right, welcome, everyone. We'll wait a second as everyone joins the room, and then we'll get started. People are still being allowed in. Wait about 30 seconds. Good. Okay, welcome, everyone. We are here to talk about this amazing new book, The Battle for Your Brain. My name is Francis Shen. I'm a faculty member at the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics, Harvard University Affiliated Professor at Harvard Law School, and faculty member at the Center for Law, Brain, and Behavior at MGH. In a moment, I'm gonna turn it over to Professor Carmel Shachar, who will introduce Professor Farahani. But before I do that, a few housekeeping items. First, thank you to the Petrie-Floem Center and the HMS Center for Bioethics for co-sponsoring this event, and to staff at both centers for getting the word out and supporting it. Second, this event is being recorded. So if you like what you see, you'll be able to pass it on to your friends afterwards. We'll share the link with everyone who's attending. Third, we invite you to submit your questions for Dr. Farahani. There is a Q and A button that you will see in your Zoom webinar screen. You click that and you can submit a question. Given time, we won't be able to get to all of them, but we will certainly be able to get to some of them. So those are my housekeeping notes. And with that, let me introduce Carmel Shachar, who is currently the Executive Director of the Petrie-Floem Center for Health Law Policy Biotechnology and Bioethics at Harvard Law School. And she will soon be taking on the new role of Assistant Clinical Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Health Law and Policy Clinic at Harvard Law School. So congratulations on that new role. Thanks for being here. Thank you for Petrie-Floem Co-sponsorship and let me hand it over to you. Thanks, Francis. I am really delighted to have the privilege to introduce Professor Neeta Farahani. She is the Robinson O. Everett Distinguished Professor of Law and Philosophy at Duke Law School, as well as the Founding Director of Duke Science and Society, the Faculty Chair of the Duke MA in Bioethics and Science Policy and the Principal Investigator of SLAP Lab, which is quite possibly the best acronym. We are very privileged at the Petrie-Floem Center to work with Neeta because she is also co-editor in chief and co-founder of the Journal of Law and the Biosciences in addition to many other groups that she contributes her time, including being on the Board of Advisors for Scientific American. Neeta is somebody who I find really admirable as a bioethicist and a health lawyer. I will say one short story and then move on so that you can actually hear from her. We were lucky enough to co-edit a volume on consumer genetic technology with Neeta several years ago and at the Writers' Dinner for the conference that led into the book, we were all discussing consumer genetic technologies, such as 23 and Neet, but we were all discussing it in a very bloodless way, like, oh, somebody could use 23 and Neet, but not I. I, of course, as a bioethicist and a robot with no DNA and I'm not interested in it at all. And Neeta, I think, was the first person from the group to really talk about it as, do I wanna do this? And actually, this is amazing that we can peer into our DNA and this is a really great thing. And I think her just discussing it in such a lovely candid and open way shifted the conversation and made me comfortable saying, yeah, I actually have used 23 and Neet taught me some really valuable things about my genetics that I'm really happy for. And so when I heard that Neeta was writing a book on ethics and neuroscience, I got very excited as a bioethicist married to a neuroscientist because as I've told her, I now have an easy gift for our wedding anniversary coming up. But I think even if I was not married to a neuroscientist, this book would be one of my top choices for my summer reading. I think this conversation is going to be fantastic. And Francis, thank you for pulling this event together. And Neeta, thank you for giving us your time. Thanks for those lovely comments. Carmel is such a delight to join you guys today. Yeah, this is wonderful. Thanks Carmel. So I'm gonna get us started. First of all, I encourage everyone to read the book. I echo everything Carmel said, whether it's summer reading or anniversary presents or four-year student. It's a really wonderful book. I was telling Francis Farhani before we get on. I was really struck by how personal the book is. If you read it, you'll learn of Neeta's family, her children, her mother, conversations with her father about her mother's health, about Francis Farhani's own brain challenges and how she's tackled them. So thank you for writing a book that is both intellectual and intimate. The core thesis of the book, at least as I take it, is that we're at this crossroads with neuro-technology. There's one version of the future that's really awesome. There's another version that's really bad and we have some tough choices to make. And the core, I think of the emphasis in the book is that one of the things we need to do is protect legal protections for our cognitive liberty at the individual level. So I'd like to ask you maybe to help us and our audience think about some context for this argument and for the book. And Carmel, such as you've got talent across all these different areas, you know so much. When you sat down and just kind of thought about what you're gonna write about and with so many different options and so many ways that neuroscience is affecting society, how did you come to the decision to write this book at this time? Oh, that's a big question, Francis. So first, I would say it seems like the book is well timed in the moment that people are incredibly anxious about what's happening with AI. And the book is in part that, right? It's in part a book about the extraordinary advances in AI that now enable the decoding of the human brain as well. But that's luck in having published the book in the moment at which a lot of people are anxious about it already. I've been thinking about these issues for a very long time, right? More than a decade, I've been writing about the different ways in which neuroscience and neuro technology are used in the legal system and give us a lens by which we can understand some of our preexisting commitments within law. But in each of those earlier endeavors, what I discovered was that there was really kind of a missing whole. There was a way in which we haven't been thinking about the ability to actually peer into, manipulate, change the human brain much more directly than we can otherwise. And in recognizing that whole, I started writing early on about the role of cognitive liberty in our lives. And by cognitive liberty, I really mean the right to self-determination over our brains and mental experiences as a right to both access and use technologies, but also a right from interference with our mental privacy and freedom of thought. And this book was, for me, very much an exploration of the emerging technologies that enable that access and decoding, the ways in which that will become widespread and are already becoming widespread and fleshing out the legal and normative case for cognitive liberty. And the process of writing the book was my own journey. And that's a lot of the reasons why there's so much personal in the book. It was my personal journey in both understanding and grappling with these technologies, but also in developing this bigger framework of cognitive liberty. And so it just came very naturally to inject myself in it because I was part of the story, right? Whether it was watching a movie with my daughter and puzzling over, like, oh my gosh, that parallel between the science fiction and the realities and just writing about that experience to help people kind of get entrance into it. And I'll say this, which is to me, it's a very natural evolution of technology, which is people are very accustomed to sensors and their smartwatches and in their rings that track their heartbeats and footsteps and breaths and body temperatures. And so the idea that brain sensors can now detect and decode our brain activity is a natural progression of where technology and the quantified self-movement is, but it was only when I started to hear from technologists themselves about moving from what had been a category of technology that had really been niche products with very limited applications to embedding brain sensors into our everyday devices like earbuds and headphones and watches and wearable tattoos and how that not only will decode and give us access to our brain activity, but enable us to have a new way of interfacing with technology that I really understood how urgent the conversation was that this was about to be a transformational technology. And unlike AI where everybody is talking about it, nobody seems to be talking about this transformational technology that's happening. So that made it incredibly urgent for me to then finally with all of these ideas percolating for a very long time to write this book and to define this category of cognitive liberty and law in our lives. I am not hearing you. I pressed the wrong button. That was me. That was great. And that leads to a couple more questions. So I think a lot of the, at least some of the attendees today are people who work or might wanna work in this area thinking about, how do you anticipate the future and then account for it? And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about that. You mentioned the word urgency and that certainly comes across in the book. And you mentioned and through some stories illustrated how at least my sense was that you thought this might happen and you see a certain presentation or you have a couple of conversations and you walk away thinking, this is actually happening already now. But how do you as someone who is working on things that haven't happened yet, how do you get the timing right? That is you definitely don't wanna wait till it's too late. On the other hand, I think of the year 2000, the Hullabaloo where we got all ready for this thing that never happened, right? It was always the next big thing. It didn't happen. So how do you do that? Like get ready for something and in particular think about making laws for a world that sort of exists but doesn't quite yet exist. So a lot of us have read Shoshana Zuboff's book The Age of Surveillance Capitalism and I think it's a tremendous book and it's also a tremendous book about a phenomena that has already happened, right? Which is that our personal data has already been commodified. We have become the product for companies. The business model has been built around the commodification of data and the misuse in many cases of data. And that doesn't have to be the story with neuro technology, right? It can be a different story that we can write but you can't write that story decades in advance and there isn't the political will or the interest in writing it decades in advance but there is a moment to get it right and that's, I believe this moment and here's why. So first, you've read the book, Frances. So you know, very little of what I've described is about a future, right? A lot of what I'm describing is about what's already here and what is already happening just not at widespread scale across society, right? But I mean, 5,000 companies worldwide are already using smart cap technology to track employees' fatigue levels. You know, I gave a presentation at the World Economic Forum in Davos about the use of brain wearables in the workplace and a major global corporation, CEO came up to me afterwards and said that was such an interesting presentation you can include us as a use case because we've already used the technology that you're describing on thousands of employees and you know, we have some really interesting data that we'd love to share with you about all of the other metrics that we're measuring beyond attention and fatigue including, you know, engagement and boredom and you know, a bunch of other aspects in the workplace. When I talk with the technologists in the space and I did a tremendous number of interviews in the book with both the technologists but also the deep dives into the, you know scientists and researchers in it they all think we're at the tipping point, right? None of them think like this is technology that's decades away. Now some of it, some of the applications are decades away meaning or not even decades away but you know, a decade away. Like right now EEG isn't fast enough to be a very reliable controller for interface with other technology. There's a latency in how quickly you can turn on and off or use it in the place of a mouse for example. And so the way that, you know brain sensors will first become widespread is really to track everyday brain activity from focus and attention to everyday metrics of brain health as an interface for all of the rest of our technology those are applications that will come in time but in kind of getting the moment right I think getting the moment right for something that is as transformational as neuro technology that is as transformational as direct access to be able to alter and detect what's happening in the brain. The moment before is the right time to get the safeguards into place especially if they're the kinds of safeguards that I'm talking about which is to have the terms of service be fundamentally different. Commodification of brain data has already begun it isn't at scale yet. Brain sensors are already being sold worldwide it isn't everybody who's using them yet when it becomes an everyday part of our everyday lives that's the moment at which you hope that the safeguards are already in place and so that's why I think now is the right moment to do so but you have to do a lot of futurism you can't be writing about science fiction decades in advance if you're writing a book like this I think what most people have said about the book that they found startling is not that I am writing about a future but that I am writing about so many real world examples that are already in use today and that's I think what motivates people to recognize the urgency of the conversation. Yeah it's and there are and there are lots of these real world examples and it leads to where I wanna go next which is that throughout the book you really and I commend you for this you take a balanced approach that is at least some of the headlines covering your book I think have picked up on the need to protect the brain bad things are gonna happen we need to go back to be yeoman it's not your argument at all as I'm gonna point out but we need to be able to yeoman farmers and like an anti technology movement you're actually and you come out we'll get to this later you think traditionalists are on the wrong side of history with respect to sort of paternalism but even at the end you're right with neuro technology it's not too late to protect against the same fate for our brains we stand at a fork in the road where the coming dawn of neuro technology could change our lives for the better or lead to this dystopian future but I wanna focus on that better part because I feel like especially in say the biothics, neuro ethics community you get more credit for finding all the bad things that are gonna happen and then trying to stop them but one bad thing is that people couldn't see the benefits here and don't uptake the technology in fact it could lead to inequities that those who can afford and understand this stuff start using it and there'd be fear for using it to receive vaccines is the place where boy it would have been really good if more had used them could you help us paint a picture of what the better future looks like if we get it right, if we get the laws in place what does flourishing look like alongside this neuro tech that's already here? Yeah, thanks for pointing that out Francis so first I will say it's hard to write a book in this space that really is balanced and I really believe there's a lot of good here and there's some really frightening aspects of it and it is about getting it right and even working with my editor this was one of the hardest parts he was like nuance is not something that is easy to get across and this kind of nuanced position of like it's good it's bad it's both like that he's like that is not it's much easier to sell a book that is like look at the dystopian future that's coming and some of the headlines have done that and that's been a little frustrating for me to be honest is when you have these super dystopian clickbait headlines especially when I'm writing about clickbait as a bad thing in the book right here so that's unfortunate some of the most well written pieces that I've really treasured have been the ones that have done the nuance and those I think have advanced the conversation in really meaningful ways there was a guardian piece that I thought was phenomenal in this regard that really set and reset the tone of the conversation that had already started around the book but on the positive so why do I take that approach? So first cognitive liberty as I define it in the book is again the right to and the right from and the right to as I see it is a powerful right to self-determination over our brains and mental experiences which includes the right to access what's happening in our own brains and the right to change it whether that's to enhance it or diminish it and let's just start with access because that's where some really positive things could occur we know and track virtually nothing that's happening in our own brains right now which is really stunning if you think about it by comparison to like tracking our heartbeats and our footsteps and people can tell you their cholesterol levels, their blood pressure but they only have their internal software to access what's happening in their own brains even though most of us identify our sense of self most closely with our own brains and so from the basics like little things which are big things for many of us like when do you focus the best? Do you focus best in the morning? Do you focus best in the afternoon? Do you really work better from home? What is the switching cost for you between going from platform to platform when you're on social media and then you go back into writing how much time does that actually cost you? What does the arc of cognitive decline look like over time? If you're an epileptic can you detect epileptic seizures minutes to up to an hour before they occur? Tracking basic brain metrics from everything from your focus and attention and boredom and fatigue to your biases like actually being able to detect your own biases and see not just through implicit association tests but through actual targeting of an identification of your own biases like there's a lot we can learn through the process of self-discovery about ourselves, about our brains, about our brain health there's a lot we can do to enhance and to even ease our own suffering and I talk about some very personal experiences of using for example, neurofeedback in my own life drugs and devices that I've used and my own journey of chronic migraines and trying absolutely everything under the sun within the realm of neuro technology to do so. So, it's very scary to make your brain transparent to others. There are very significant downsides to doing so but the reason we're gonna go into this new era isn't just so that governments and corporations can hack into our brains. The reason we're gonna go into this new era is because it can be transformational for our health for our wellbeing and even what it means to be human.  There's so much that may happen in this coming age with neuro technology that will transform humanity in many ways that will be positive that I think will willingly go into this era and I want us if we do so to do so recognizing how to do so in ways that will be beneficial rather than harmful to society. Yeah, well, I appreciate you saying that and I'm glad that it's interesting to hear that you had that conversation with your editor because it did come through that you do see this balance and I understand you to gotta sell the book and it's gotta be positioned a certain way but I commend you for doing that balancing. I wanna contrast the benefits version with the harms version, the sort of dystopia that you also raise with one line of thread that I didn't see discussed as much in the book and that has to do with the intersection with race and scientific racism and racial inequity and as context for this, there's been a group here at Harvard that started to focus on neuro technology justice and it's been a lot of fun and we had some support from the Dana Foundation to do a neuro technology justice summit in February and we asked the audience and actually we had eight Dana Fellows, amazing people. We asked them to basically the fork in the road question that you ask, is neuro tech channels are gonna be co-opted by the rich and the powerful and the mean spirited or is there some beneficial role like the one you just mentioned? I gotta say people were split with good reason like on each side but one of our fellows, Dr. Jasmine Quasar is at Carnegie Mellon has done some work and I don't wanna raise it here about the sort of systematic bias of particular electrical encephalography and ethnias these devices that for those who don't know work by measuring electrical activity and you describe it well in the book but through the scalp. And the problem that Dr. Quasar and others pointed out is that for almost the entirety of these technologies exist and it was sort of overlooked that they were systematically excluding certain groups because of hair color. And so I wanna ask about who's included in this neuro technology future and how do we address this concern which is clearly there because it's been there so almost every time a new technology whether it's neuro or not is shown up but especially in neuroscience with our history of phrenology and its justification of a racial hierarchy. How do we as and I guess who's the we also but how do we address this? And are you concerned about it? How does that again that sort of racial inequity or concern about racial injustice play into this neuro technology future or present? Yeah, it's a great question. So I hear two different questions within what you asked, Frances. One of them is the validity of the data itself given the populations that have been included within data sets that have analyzed electroencephalography and FNIRs. And the second is questions about who benefits from the technology who's at risk from the technology what are the kind of distributional concerns? Is that fair and kind of? Yeah, I think that's right. Okay, and so let's start with the first one and the first one was respect to data validity.  They're not like there is some universality in terms of being able to like turn switches on and off with your brain or concentration or alpha or beta kind of brain activity levels but calibration is actually unique to each person when you use the devices. And so questions about the validity of the data as to whether or not like alpha really represents a particular thing or gamma or delta brainwaves and frequencies reflect different things. Those I think have been ecologically validated across a lot of different populations in terms of is that really correlated with stress levels? Is that really correlated with attention and focus levels? That doesn't seem to vary based on who's included excluded within the dataset because it has been replicated widely across now many different scalps and many different skin colors to use it and it's also been calibrated with other modalities and of course with clinical EEG which has been much broader than the consumer-based EEG datasets. I'll also say the generative AI adds a really interesting dimension to this because most of the neuro technologists who I've been talking with have talked about how really generative in AI will enable true customization to your own brain activity and calibration to your own brain activity. So I think at least from a analytic or kind of clinical validity of the technology who's included is anybody who wants to be included in the kind of absolute sense. So then we need to talk about it from the distributive justice sense which is who will have access to the technologies. I don't think this is that different than any other conversation meaning I don't think that there's something unique or special or different about the distributive justice concerns when it comes to neuro technologies than other technologies in that the distributional concerns about the maldistribution of technologies the maldistribution of benefits across society the structural problems that that plays into the hierarchy that that perpetuates the hierarchies of informational asymmetries and the workplace all of that I think exists across technologies. And so the reason it's not in this book uniquely is not because I don't think it's an important part of the conversation it's because in fashioning cognitive liberty cognitive liberty exists within already other liberties and interests that are at play I'm trying to kind of carve out what's unique in this space and I'm not sure that I see that as being a unique issue within the space but a pervasive issue that we have to address across society. And that's gonna be true for AI and the power of AI and the tools and the availability of AI across society. The only way in which I think it starts to become unique is if you think that particular technologies are so transformational as to be critical to human flourishing. And to the extent that we believe that if we believe like AI is crucial and access to it is crucial to human flourishing more so than other technologies or neuro technologies and access to it are crucial to human flourishing and more so than other technologies then the urgency of addressing the distributional concerns within that technology become much more important. And I think you could make that case for neuro tech which is to say that because of its power and because of the fact that if it really does become the way in which people interface with other technologies and substantially decreases the friction and increases the ease or the enhancement potentials are substantially more powerful with neuro technologies than other areas then it becomes urgent that we address what is a pervasive issue in this context because of the unique benefits that it would provide to people. Yeah, that makes sense. Let me ask about another pervasive issue that shows up here and that has to do with the balance that you want to strike between allowing individuals to flourish but protecting them from the harms. And in particular, I want to think about adolescents. You argue that in general respecting people's right to self-determination including their right to enhance or diminish their brains will further enable human flourishing and broadly with respect to giving consumers information you argue that traditionalists are on the wrong side of history the view that consumers are too health illiterate to justify their access to justify self-access to their brains belittles the average person and denies them the opportunity to become more educated. So I want to think about a hypothetical of 13 year olds because they are- They're really hanging out strongly on that one, didn't I, Francis? They're many that I'm like a little bit more hesitant but on that one that's like a very that's a pretty strong statement. Yeah, no, and I mean, and I get it. I mean, it makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways but then I thought, okay but I'm thinking about it like me, you know or 45 year old me but what about, and now are your oldest or a little younger, ours is 11 we've all been through there, but age 13. So I picked 13 because it's PG 13 it's when Apple and others like begin to you get to do certain things but you're also like five years away from 18, right? So you know, what about that? It seems to me it's an example where there and there are many others but there's one where there's this tension between trying to follow the sort of path of self-determination. And if I reread this sort of many of us think that 13 year olds are too health illiterate. I wouldn't- Yeah, but I mean, so I would say I'm older and are different, right? I mean, so I'm fine with paternalism when it comes to children because I think that's where paternalism plays its role. You're supposed to parent and so making choices for children like I don't think that full self-determination at age 13 to do anything you want or have any kind of screen time you want or make any choices you want with respect to the use or misuse of technologies is within your hands. I don't think you have fully formed judgment to be making those choices yet. It's not about health literacy or illiteracy it's about the fact that you are still being parented. And parenting I think is helping children to develop the capacity for self-determination over time as their judgment and their perspective develops. So if you ask me at 13 whether or not I think that a child is too health illiterate to get direct access to information about their most serious medical conditions or what's happening in their own brains and whether parents can exercise choices in that instance, I think, yes, absolutely. I'm fine with that. If you want to talk to me about an adult making those choices and like somebody standing in the place of making a decision about what access to information they have about their own brains then I think we're on the wrong side of history. Okay, so I want to ask you about the middle because I thought that might be your answer. And of course, you know, I thought of this. So there's all this neuroscience on the young adult brain which you know really well, right? It's arguably the place it's been the most active and there are a lot who argue that the 18 year old, let's speak 18 because 18 now is a magical legal number. It's certainly a place where these technology companies are aware and are trying to, these are the consumers and they're targeting. Would part of the, how do we balance that in the law? That is, could we justify broader protections? But it would also limit what an 18 year old could do roughly on the argument that these technologies which are specific to your neuron cells and the way they're operating and connecting together we got to be really careful because we've learned a lot about how you're not fully wired. What about, is there, I mean, what do we do with that? I mean, TikTok or something, that's not the best example, but you know, but to the firm who wants to put, you know, whatever the latest, greatest neurotech is in market 18, could we prevent that should we wait until they're 25 or do we let cognitive liberty, you know, protect their right to self-determination even at age 18. And then we'll go to audience questions to be in my last one. No, that's a great question. Especially given that, you know, all of the neuroscience tools that, you know, you continue developing all the way through your mid-20s at least. And what I would say is this, which is we have drawn a rather arbitrary line in law around the age of 18 for a whole bunch of things, right? For voting, for, you know, being able to fight in wars for, you know, what we determined to be a legal adult. And if we're gonna maintain that line, which it seems like we are, then, you know, as the kind of legal fiction of when adulthood begins, I don't think that we ought to carve this category out uniquely to say, except for when it comes to information about your own brain or except when it comes to choices around self-determination with respect to your own brain. And, you know, does that mean that we can't adopt different nudges or informational, you know, kind of campaigns to help a child understand that their brain continues to develop and that the impact, for example, as we learn about it of, you know, screen addictions or of, you know, the use of social media, which shapes and reshapes their brains in ways that can be devastating for self-esteem or can make them more likely to suffer from mental health issues, shouldn't be part of our education campaigns or that we shouldn't go after companies, for example, who are intentionally trying to addict people to their platforms, recognizing that those have disproportionate effects on children. I think all of that is fair game, right? Meaning increase information forcing functions, try to get companies or create incentives or regulations around their, you know, continued deployment of manipulative and addictive features that are embedded within technologies that disproportionately affect the youth. Whether we should then also take the next step, which just to say you can't have access to your own brain data or you can't have access to the technologies until you're beyond 18. I would not favor that largely because of where we've drawn the line on other kind of legal adulthood versus non-adulthood. Would I favor changing that line at some point given what we know about the developing brain? Maybe, you know, I think the more we learn about the developing brain, the more it seems like we really have picked a pretty arbitrary point in time to carve out a bunch of different rights and regulations. Thank you for that. So we're gonna turn to audience questions now. If you weren't here at the beginning, you're welcome to put your questions in the Q&A. One question is the name of the book, The Battle for Your Brain. Everywhere, books are sold. It's great. So one of the questions here is good ones about opting out. And the question is what are the options for opting out of neuro technologies, the context that a questioner asks is sometimes with our Fitbits, we can opt out of them. But with many of our phone collections, we tacitly accept the use agreement and it's difficult to opt out. So how much data will be secretly collected by these neuro technologies? So first I should say a lot of data is already being secretly collected, not through brain sensors, right? But, you know, much of the profiles that are being created about people through their digital activities are really designed to try to infer brains and mental experiences, right? People are trying to figure out what the emotional and kind of cognitive landscape is of individuals and then to use that for micro-targeting of advertisements or develop profiles and everything else about them. To the extent that you can opt out of a digital life, that's the extent to which you can opt out of all of that information being collected against you, which is to say you don't really have opt-out options. Brain sensors for the foreseeable future, I think will be opt-outable. That is you can buy, you know, air pods that will have brain sensors and you can buy air pods that will not have brain sensors and maybe not air pods in particular, but earbuds, right? So you might choose to go with the company that does or doesn't have brain sensors in it or you might choose headphones that do or don't have brain sensors in it or the watch that does or doesn't. When it will become much more difficult to opt in and opt out is when it becomes the way in which we interface with all of the rest of our technology. And that's a future that many of these companies are really focused on building. So MATA plans to launch in 2025, its first watch for neural interface with its AR glasses. Now that's a timeframe that has been pushed a couple of times, originally it was 2022 and then 2023 and now it's early 2025, so we'll see. But that's their current estimate is that neural interface, the first iteration of it will be early 2025. By the end of I think the decade, we can expect that it'll be increasingly more difficult to interface with virtual reality and augmented reality without sensors as the way in which you interface with those technologies. And so I think, whether it's AR, VR, or like I heard a presentation at TED last week around humane, which is screenless technology that is your AI that senses your everyday activity. I think increasingly all of that will be integrated with sensors that detect brain and other biometric activity which will become very hard to opt out of to the extent that you wanna have a digital life that'll be harder and harder. Which is why I think it's so important that we really get out ahead of that moment of ubiquity is to give people that option to be able to opt out. And I'll just say chapter two of the book focuses on your brain at work. And I think that's gonna become a place in which it'll become harder and harder to opt out as well is the extent to which that's integrated into everyday workplace for cognitive ergonomics, that is the adaptive workplace to the brain or self-tracking of focus or tracking that is not self-tracking but mandated by employers. Thanks for that. I wanna combine a couple of questions. In the final chapter towards the end of the book, you talk about knowing for a universal human right as part of the solution. Two of our questions are raising other legal avenues which could be complementary or substitutes. One from Adam Steiner asked about data ownership and some as you know have argued on both sides that property law and data ownership of brain data might be one option. Danielle Torino asked, also she loves your book and what are suggestions around writing data use agreements or informed consent? It's almost a contractual mechanism to deal with this. So could you talk a little bit about the different legal avenues that might be available and how you see them working independently or work together? Yeah, so I'm advocating for cognitive liberty as a universal human right but it's not the only approach to it, right? And I'm not the only person who's either writing about cognitive liberty or kind of developing the normative frameworks and theories around it. This is my take on how we ought to recognize it and how we ought to integrate it and what the normative case for it ought to be. The reason I locate it within international human rights law is because first I think it's an international global right that we need to recognize that I think has significant both legal power to recognize it internationally but also has significant norm potential as well. So setting it as both a legal as well as a societal norm of recognize the importance of cognitive liberty I think is foundational. And the mechanism by which I suggest that we do that is by recognizing it has three different components which exist and are reflected within international human rights law. That is to update privacy to include mental privacy and I describe which aspects of our cognitive and effective experiences would be covered by that to update freedom of thought to go beyond religious freedom and belief and to include freedom from interception, manipulation and punishment of our thoughts. And that builds on the work of Dr. Ahmed Shahid who was the special rapporteur of freedom of thought and held the mandate previously. And the last is self-determination which is this kind of positive aspect of it. But to your question specifically about other mechanisms by which that would be implemented I see that both as an international right but then requiring both national legislation and context specific legislation. So context specific could include things like employment law that needs to specifically address the collection of biometric data and particularly brain biometric data within the workplace and what that means and what rights individuals have and when mental privacy might yield for example to societal interests in certain contexts. The other aspect of it is things like data use and data agreements. And so the GDPR addresses some aspects of data use there are different laws within the United States in different jurisdictions that address biometric collection and use. And the question is whether or not we treat this as being part of those bigger biometric laws that we carve out something as uniquely sensitive with respect to brain data or if we focus instead on the inferences that can be drawn from different kinds of data to get at brains and mental experiences. I favor this last category is the way to think about it which is inferences that can be drawn. But I also think that there's something unique about accessing directly brain activity and the chilling effect that that has on people. And so I talk about that as one of the aspects that we need to think about. And I'll just put on the table which is I was talking with the founder of OpenBCI last week and we were talking about what might data use agreements look like that companies could adopt which would give people personal control over their data but still enable them to share with researchers and scientists for the aggregation of data for being able to discover a lot more about our brains and to be able to solve many of the issues that arise from neurological disease and suffering. And I think a lot of people within the neurotic industry are exploring that option, which is to figure out what could we do to give people kind of personal whether it's through web three or blockchain or other kind of options, personal control over brain data that they could then share through interoperability and standards that might be set to enable those additional insights. Yeah, I think, I mean, my view is combination as you say of these things is going to be needed and of course country specific, I mean, culture specific, the like. Speaking of different cultures, there are two questions here that I think I'm going to pair it together. And the first question which comes from Anushka Dadlani asked, could you talk about how advances in neurotech could impact benefit advances in other scientific fields specifically anti-aging and human longevity and there was an additional question from an anonymous attendee which asked, have you run these, Nita, have you run these ideas past older adults? And I'm curious about both of them. Like they're not the exact same question but they're kind of in the same bucket. I asked you the question about developing brain so let's look at- Wait, so what was the first question? The second question is around senior citizens but- Yeah, and the first question here is about the implications of neurotech for really anti-aging, human longevity. Right, right, right, yeah. Yeah. So that stuff's interesting, right? In the last or second to last chapter of the book Beyond Human, I do talk about some of the possibilities of human longevity, whether that's through things like brain uploading that people have described or some of the really innovative work like Nenad Sestin and his team's work on BrainX to be able to figure out if there are aspects of the human brain and damage that occurs over time that could be reversed. And even questions about different aspects of the brain where we start to see deterioration over time whether it's through neurodegenerative diseases or things like glutathione and its depletion over time and whether the more we learn about the brain and the more brain sensors for example are used in everyday life if we might not gain insights that would enable us to be able to address a lot of these questions with respect to human longevity, both the causes, potentially treatments and reversibility of it. I have talked to seniors and it's interesting because I think the most common response I get from them is thank goodness I will not be alive to see some of these changes. And so it's, I think people quickly see the dystopian side of it and it's harder for people to imagine what the like that the promise really will outweigh the rest. And that is a possibility, right? I mean, it is possible that it will become so dystopian that it is hard for us to actually achieve a vision of the world where we've realized the benefits of it. I'm hopeful that we can get out ahead of it so that that's not the case. I'm hopeful that the benefits to brain health and wellness and addressing and understanding the burden and toll of neurological disease and suffering that we could discover through this technology are promising enough that we can realize that future. But that's the most common response. Thank goodness I will not be alive for it. Well, you may be, I mean, you consider yourself, are you a futurist? I've seen that in your bio sometimes. You are, yeah.  Well, I mean, so not in that way. I mean, I'm a futurist and I sort of realized finally that that's what I am, which is the first thing that I did when I graduated from college is I worked at a strategy consulting company. And for three years what they taught me were tools of forecasting from trend analysis to mathematical modeling to being able to estimate and understand the size of industries and the direction and how to track the different metrics of progress and in a field. And I've been applying that throughout my career to technological development and scientific development across genomics and AI and neuro tech.  It's just, I combine that futurism with trying to then understand the legal and ethical implications and how we might get out ahead of it. But that's what I'm really drawn to is the directionality of change and technologies and forecasting more so than, you know, kind of technologies that are already here and spending a lot of time thinking about those. I think there's kind of a place for each of us in that landscape. And mine is, I like thinking about where things are going and trying to help to assess it. If I could pick up on that thread, a couple of questions from students have basically asked some version of, okay, so what might careers look like in the new world you're painting slash what I would ask is, how do we train the next generation of, and I don't even know what the fields are exactly and how you would fill that in to help us take the right fork and the right path as we re-appreciate this fork. And maybe you can talk about your own background which is really interdisciplinary.   So maybe there's part bio question in there too, but just it feels like for these new challenges we need to rethink a little bit about how we're preparing our next generation. I wonder if you can talk about that and any concrete advice you'd have for students who are on this webinar now kind of getting excited about what you're saying and wanting to do something. So I say you and I are both weird in that regard, for instance, kind of career. That's why they glued together here. Great. So I think this is one that we could take together and talking about different ways to be able to shape our career path because, you know, we both I think have developed labs and, you know, work on different government entities and, you know, I work with companies and I suspect you do as well and kind of helping to advise them about the ethical pathway forward. And also I'm a law professor who runs and founded Duke Science and Society. I think there's a lot of different ways to come at the problem and it'd be interested in your reflections on the same, which is I've always been interested in the intersection between the legal, the kind of normative and the science and the technology. And so that's really my scientific, legal and philosophical background was bringing those different disciplines together and then looking at the issue at the intersection of them. But, you know, there are a huge number of questions to be asked from the technological side, from the privacy scholar side, from the cybersecurity side, from the, you know, kind of sociology of all of this from cultural anthropology, from the history and being able to use history to both inform the future of it. I think there isn't a right pathway forward. It's a uniquely interdisciplinary space where a lot of different voices need to come together, you know, to help understand that the clinical side, the physician side, the patient advocacy side, the democratic deliberation and policymaker side. So I think it's finding your passion. And for me, my passion was trying to address the intersection of these questions in a particular way.  But, I don't know, you also are weird like me. So, like, what do you think of that? I concur at everything. You said, I actually would, again, I really like, as I mentioned the outset, that your book is not, I mean, you're futurist. You're not attacking the technology as a bad thing. And you have multiple examples where through conversations, you're working with these companies, you know, and now helping them, I think, to see things, maybe the others, it's one exchange, right? You basically say, well, what are these, never thought of that, right? And so you're helping them to think about these things. And I think going into it in a collaborative tone is just so, so important, but collaborative, but you're also standing up for what you would want us to have as a universal human right. So we might have time for a couple more audience questions, but I want to get one more in, and you know I'd ask about the criminal justice system, I'm sure, so I want to read, this is the end of this chapter, the last fortress, and you argue that mental privacy is a critical aspect of cognitive liberty, but like all privacy interests, it is not absolute. People can and should have the right to give others access to their brain activity. There will be times when we want to do so to promote research on exchanges or goods and services. And here's what I want to get to. There will be times that society will demand tracking of our brain activity when the lives or others are at risk. So I see this playing out already, actually in the criminal justice system. I see some people called it digital prisons, others probably me see it as a much more humane future than locking people up. But I'm wondering what you think about how we balance this right to cognitive liberty for someone who has done some active interpersonal violence, who has some history of serious mental illness, who's now being released back in society. And we have the opportunity for the first time ever not to rely on like check-ins with the parole officer every two weeks, but to get 24 seven data on this individual, we might be able to see the volcano before it erupts. But of course that sounds, is that utopian? Is that utopian? Like how do you think about this balancing of rights specifically in the criminal justice domain? Yeah, it's both, right? It's this topian and utopian and, you know, it's always important with emerging tech to look at it compared to the status quo, right? And I think a lot of times people look at technology in a vacuum rather than by what we're already doing, right? I mean, automated vehicles isn't, you know, and kind of self-driving vehicles is a good comparison to that, which is like, yeah, they sometimes get into accidents and so do humans. And so then the question is, you know, are they worse? Are they better? They're better than the status quo. And, you know, right now we do really dystopian things to prisoners, solitary confinement and prison and prison conditions and people who are mentally ill not getting any of the resources and help that they need and people who are, you know, deeply, you know, addicted to drugs and other, you know, devices or children who are being sent away for life. And all of that to me is horrific in the way in which we actually currently approach justice. And so the question is, can neurotech help? And in some ways it can. It can both help us understand what we're doing, right? The research itself can help us understand what is the impact of solitary confinement? What is the impact on prison? What is the impact of the different choices that we're making? And then this kind of idea of tracking, right? Whether it's ankle bracelets or, you know, other forms of brain sensing, tracking or even moral rehabilitation, could that be done well? It could be. Could it be done in horrific ways that overwrite people's brains, overwrite their autonomy, violate their cognitive liberty and become deeply problematic? Yes.   And since these rights, since cognitive liberty is not an absolute right, but a relative right, figuring out where we're gonna carve out that balance between liberty, you know, that you have given up as a result of committing a crime versus how much we can take from you in a sense, like how much we're justified in taking from you and how intrusive it is with the mechanisms that we imagine in digital prisons or otherwise. I think that's, you know, we're gonna have to figure that out where to figure out both what the technology can do and when it's justified, but sometimes by comparison to the status quo, it may be better than what we're currently doing. Thank you for that time. For one more audience question, I'll ask this question from Federico Fernandez-Kepka. And I think it reflects probably some questions that others have. So the question is, do you think that accepting these neuro technologies would create an issue of over-medicalizing the brain and begin a path to create an ideal brain or incentivize a certain type of brain activity and stigmatize other types of brain activity, which I guess is another way of asking about neurodiversity as well. And if we can't all agree on what the good life is, how can we all agree on what the good brain is, how do you approach, how do you answer that question? Yeah, there is a risk of becoming deeply reductionistic about the brain. And I talk in, I don't remember which chapter, but I think it's the chapter on mental manipulation, which is about the seductive allure of neuroscience and kind of reducing people to the kind of, their brains and their puzzle pieces. I wrote an op-ed recently for the LA Times about the use of cognitive and personality testing for the workplace and how we've already started to try to reduce people to their cognitive and effective functionings and how that's discriminating against people with neuro atypical brains, even though that may have nothing to do with who makes a good employee or what a good fit is. There's definitely a risk that we go that path. The more we understand about the brain or reduce it to bits and bytes, rather than taking into account the whole person. There's also a possibility on the other side, which is we all discover that we're on a spectrum of neuro atypicality and the kind of idea that most of us have about our own brains and mental experiences or lack of biases or neuro-typicality turns out not to be accurate and that with better data, we start to recognize the broader diversity of human brains and mental experiences and cognitive and effective functions. So it's a bit of an empirical question, I think what we do with it and it's a bit of a normative question of what we choose to do with it. Both of those things I think will play out over time and we just have to be a tendon to the risk of the kind of reductionist tendencies that we have when it comes to explanations about the brain and behavior. Yeah, so that makes sense. In our last minute and a half or so, maybe you'll want to not answer, but so let's say we're at the crossroads. I read the book as, I don't know, 51, 49, thinking that we're going to go the right way, that my reading of the book was Professor Farahani thinks that we can achieve this brighter future and that we actually will kind of a rally to arms. You know, I referenced the summit that we had, there was some really deep pessimism. We're not at the fork in the road was like 50, 100, way back. Like this is just, the story ain't changing. Did I read that right? Are you ultimately optimistic here or are you really agnostic? And it's gonna depend on collectively whatever the we is, what we do. Maybe you can end on that note where this is all headed. I am more optimistic now than I even when I wrote and finished the book. And that's because of the collective awakening, I think that's happening in the face of the rapid changes with AI. And the fact that you see so many people in a younger generation, for example, choosing to unplug from devices and read books. And, you know, I see a kind of pendulum like swinging in the opposite direction. I think there is a very dystopian path. And so for you to say 51, 49 is probably right. Like it's not like I'm like, this is all gonna turn out great if we just make some good choices right now. It's all gonna be fine, right? I think there is a very Orwellian vision of this future that's ahead of us if we don't make some radical changes now. And, you know, I am optimistic in this moment that those kinds of radical changes are possible and that we have the political will and we have the collective consciousness to do so. But if we don't make those choices, you know, it won't be good. Oh, that's a great way to end. Professor Farahani, thank you for joining us. The book, A Battle for Your Brain, available everywhere. Allanita Farahani on Twitter. And thank you, Nina, for being here. This was a lot of fun. We learned a lot and we'll be in touch. Thanks for the rich conversation and thanks everybody for joining. Thanks everyone. Take care. Bye-bye. I'm gonna end the webinar.


on to some high school volleyball now Park Rapids honoring their setter Kennedy Carlson before the game. The junior recorded her 2000th career set assist last week. Congratulations on the big milestone for her. She and the Panthers hosted Pine River Backus tonight. The Tigers had the advantage early in this one. Maya Hanson takes the Annie Semmler set and floats it in for the point. PLB goes up three but it wouldn't take Park Rapids long to come back all square later in the set. Carlson sets up Riley Michelson for the big spike and then set point for the Panthers and Emily Dean capitalizes on the PR beam at stake for the point. Park Rapids takes set 125-21. They sweep the game three to zero. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland news, please consider making a tax deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Hi everyone, this is Jason here from Nathaniel School of Music and in this lesson We are going to look at how to play arpeggios on the piano arpeggios are the most popular and most common ways to play your chords very different than just Wacking them all together you play them in a nice flowing manner almost melodic manner if you will Where each note of the chord is played one by one in this lesson We are going to look at three of my go-to arpeggio patterns for anyone playing the piano from myself to you Maybe a beginner an intermediate or an advanced player these arpeggio patterns are going to work really great So let's get started right away and in this lesson. I'm going to choose four chords for pretty much the whole thing We are going to do E minor G major D major and A major Okay, I repeat E minor G major D major and a major and as you'll observe we are playing these chords as Inversions in order to shift well and in order to voice lead well so that the movement between each chord is nice and smooth So you go E minor to G like this why You'll observe that G is the common note and B is a common note between the chords So why change the common notes? You could do E minor and G major like this and then when I want to do D major which is next I find that D is in common, right? So we go D F sharp a Okay, and lastly a major you can either go down here or You can go up here, right? Again a is in common, right? So try to play chords close to each other in simple words You can watch a lot of our videos which we've already done on chord inversions Which will help you shift between chords a lot more quicker on the piano a chord is not just E minor played like that you can play it like this like this Or like this you have so many ways of playing a particular chord So it's important to have these options at your disposal before you play chords or arpeggios or anything to do with harmony Okay, so coming back to the chords E minor G major D major a Major you could play like that or I would prefer something easier Can play it like that e ac sharp so I'm calling it out in order e gb dgb df sharp a e ac sharp This is also what we could call as a Dorian chord progression because one might argue That this follows the e Dorian scale however, the e Dorian scale will be Derived from the D major scale the normal D major scale. We call it the second mode We will definitely do a video on mode shortly, which you could follow. Okay, so E minor G major D major and a major very popular chord progression I'm sure you've heard it in green days boulevard of broken dreams or imagine dragons is radioactive and Mad world, you know, so there are a lot of songs which use this now coming back to the point of the lesson The point of the lesson is to show you three very very tried and tested go to default great sounding arpeggio techniques and all of this revolves around you taking the chord and playing the notes one finger at a time and Seeing which one you like best and then trying to Emote it and try to play it with as much feeling and expression as possible. So if you take the e minor chord Instead of holding it down with all the three fingers and arpeggio could be made by just playing the notes one by one So I go one two three Four and generally when we play arpeggios at the bare minimum, they are played double of the pulse so If this is the pulse we need to play double one and two and three and four and so tongue tongue tongue So this is how your hand is going to move while this is the pulse pulse means this is how you count to the song This is how the audience is going to move to the song and so on so I'm just going to show you all the three arpeggios on just the e minor chord and then we'll get cracking. So the first arpeggio is starting from the low note the middle note The high note and then coming back to the middle note.   So one and two and three and agreed one and two and three try to play along with me two three four one and two and three and four and Two we are going to choose the other chords very shortly. So hang on Let's first get e minor going and in the left hand you could just play e or the name of the chord, which is e in the case of e minor e minor e minor Okay, and this is the moving chord in the right hand a moving chord which I which we also call as an arpeggio So the other arpeggio pattern. What have we looked at so far? We've looked at l m h m So the other arpeggio pattern would be H m l m you just start at the top Go down and then go back up and then you create a loop of four notes Or a repetition or a recurrence of four notes High middle low middle high middle low, okay high middle So with high middle low middle and even low middle high middle What's happening is the first note is something you could consider to sustain with the finger.  You could just go and lift it no problem, but you may not want to play it like Like this this is not a great tonality because it sounds very staccato and choppy if you will So another a good way to see if you're doing it Well is to look at your fingers and just make sure a few things are in order One is the fingers are not randomly in the air your fingers don't Drop down, you know a flatten itself out They should generally be healthy like this and keep them all touching the keyboard surface. So you go And try to avoid dropping your hand and try to avoid Lifting your fingers Basically make it look like any pianist which you follow like anyone who you think you like or is professional They'll generally play like this Okay, if you can hold the high so what have we learned so far low starting on the low l m h m Then starting on the high Right another pattern which I wanted to sneak into the lesson would be where you started the high note Which in this case is b Go to the low note e middle note g And come back low This is one of my favorites So again hold the high if possible And try out different finger combinations. It's not mandatory that you use a specific finger ordering See how it goes because finger combinations are dependent on the next chord So we have to see what the next chord is and then our fingers will be customized accordingly Okay, so let's now do this for all the four chords of the progression This epic rock dorian progression if you will so we go e minor I'm showing you with the low note starting l m h m What's the next chord g major which I am playing like this. All you do is move your thumb down e minor come down to d g b g major third chord d major d f sharp a and slide up Slide the thumb up keep this on a use your ring finger for the c sharp Let's do it again e minor g major d major last chord e major e major And two ways of playing a major. I guess you could stick with that. So Let's bring in the left hand now the left hand basically plays the name of the chord the root of the chord Which ultimately gives you the purpose or the sound of the chord e for e minor g for g major D for d major a for a major. Let's see how it goes e minor g major g in the bass d major d in the bass a major a in the bass e minor e in the bass g major g in the bass d major d in the bass a major a in the bass and back to okay play along l m h m And once you're done and dusted with l m h m you could also do starting with the high which is h m l m starting on the b in the case of e minor.  Let it do its thing at least in this lesson the last one high low middle low Let's see how that goes high low middle low and always when you practice these arpeggios do it slow with the pulse and then develop a nice mechanical motion which kind of gets registered by your subconscious mind So you can play this anytime of the day Even when you just about wake up or just about to sleep you can still play this arpeggio, you know That's high low middle low high l m l h l right, so Right, so let's recap the lesson guys. We have four chords e minor g major d major a major and we are playing this really really popular epic rock progression on the dorian scale if you will And used in a lot of songs strangely enough We think that the one five six fours or those things are more common That's more in pop music or electronic dance music and stuff like that But in rock songs, this is more common if you think about it.  There are so many which work with this Also try to play the arpeggios with a lot of dynamics And character right guys. Thanks a ton for watching our lesson in the next lesson We are going to look at a lot of ways to make the existing arpeggio patterns l m h m h m l m and h l m l A lot more dynamic a lot more organic and a lot more human and less Robotic and programmed if you will so work on this lesson really hard get used to your chords the changing inversions And also just coordinating your two hands what to play here and what to play there And then head over to the next lesson It's very important that you watch the next lesson Which will take the arpeggio playing to the next level if there are x amount of people in a playing field Playing these arpeggios. I want you to be in the top 10 percent of that playing field and that's in the next video Head over to the link right away, and I will see you there And before you do don't forget if you haven't already to subscribe to our youtube channel Hit that bell for notifications your support to subscribe Share the videos means a lot for our channel And we will go a long way with your support and we can only do this with your help Cheers and see you in the next one


Welcome to Access to Trader, the number one community for those who are committed to taking control of their trading in order to achieve success, profitability, and longevity. Thank you for joining us. Here's Dan Shapiro to help you find your edge, master your process, and own your future. Hey, guys. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to another edition of the Access to Trader.com weekend update show. Hope everybody is doing well. Hope everybody had a great week of trading. For all you guys who are coming aboard viewing for the first time, welcome aboard. Like, subscribe, share. Come aboard, share this mission of unbiased technical analysis journey on a day-by-day basis based on data. Right? Not based on our opinions.   And if I had to guess where the market would be, I would be in a really bad shape. So it's all about the numbers. It's all about data crunching and applying it when stocks confirmed. So here we are. Okay. We ended the week, NASDAQ up 3.3 percent, the S&P and the Dow up about a little less than 2.5 percent. And when you look at the year-to-date totals, the QQQs are up 42 percent. That's staggering. That's absolutely staggering. The loss of 31 percent in 2022 is plus 12 percent or 11 percent going into this week. And, you know, it's just, it's one of those scenarios that we're seeing now seven months into the year that we're getting this really aggressive rally, right? And then just when you think they pull back a little bit, just a little bit to kind of reset their feet, kind of get their wind, you know, wind behind them, they start going again. And it's that parabolic move. It's like, you know, like in the video has been a perfect example. If you watched the video on Wednesday, you know, we talked about how aggressive they were coming for the 450 calls. Just a one after another after another. And this was the highest close in this whole formation. Yeah, you know, 450, you know, the stock went to 480.  A name like Tesla when they started coming out of the range here, we were watching the top of the range here, finally confirmed. Again, we'll get to the pivots in a second. You know, they were coming for the 300 calls. Now we know why. They were coming for the 300 calls before earnings that's on Wednesday because well, the first Gigafactory is officially built in Texas and they're going to start rolling out the Cybertruck. So they knew that the options market guys, again, it dictates the underlining stock. The more you see better bets coming in, the more aggressive these bets are coming in, the more frequent these bets are coming in the same option chain and the same expiration short term deep out of the money. And especially in this type of environment, there's a high probability somebody knows something, somebody got a wind of it, it's spread like wildfire and betters are going in the options market and really putting down some major wood. And that's exactly what happened with Tesla. That's exactly what happened with NVIDIA. Where are those 450 calls? Again, just the video just on Wednesday, just one video back. Microsoft, we were talking about Wednesday, they were coming for the 345 weeklies, right? Again, they got upgraded. They knew, right? They knew in this market, it's almost crazy. Like years ago, you guys remember the movie Wall Street and some of you guys, maybe you haven't seen, I'm sad thinking most people saw it with Charlie Sheen, you know, Bud Fox and Gordon Gekko and all that stuff. There was like a whole big stigma in the 1980s inside of trading. It was like this cloak and dagger world. Now all you need to do is have an option scanner. You know when they're coming for these deep out of the money costs, somebody knows something. So it's amazing. Nobody is afraid of prison. They're buying stock. They don't care. They don't buy in the options market. It's crazy. But now you can just follow along, get yourself a scanner. They're all pretty much comparable. Flow algo is what I use. Shutter flow, trade alerts, black box stock. There's like a million of them. They're all pretty much the same thing. Get yourself an option scanner. You'll see all these aggressive bets. And you know, in this type of environment, they're really, really playing out.  You can see here everything was just screaming, screaming up and a lot of stocks that it had huge moves in the morning. They gave it all back really, really aggressively and it really does show you Amazon, Nvidia, you know, all these things give it really, really right back. And it really does to show you is, again, if you keep on chasing levels that are outside of the breakout price, you're jumping off the 12th floor. So for example, Microsoft, the breakout was here. We'll show you the pivots in a second. The breakout was at 343. It wasn't, you know, 351. That's the 12th floor. That's what we always talk about jumping out of the 12th floor. Don't jump. If you're going to jump, jump out of the 1st floor, right? That's the 343 breakout. Remember, there's only one breakout. Everything else is continuation and the higher a stock goes away from his breakout level, the higher the probability the stock will get pulled harder. So for example, look at Nvidia, right? Nvidia broke out right here, right? It broke out at 339. Look at the pull, right? Look at the pull. However, a stock like Tesla that broke out above 378, right? This little channel here 378, although it did give back some into the close, it held majority of its gain. So again, closer to the breakout, you'll have a higher probability of surviving the fall out of the 1st floor than 60 points out of the money in three days like Nvidia and you can get pulled for dollars. So just always remember, there's only one breakout, right? There's only one breakout and everything else is follow-through continuation. You're trying to find the stocks that are closer to the bottom of the range than they are to the top of the range because you have a higher probability of succeeding when the stock gets above that range. And if you're wrong, you're wrong for pennies because you know exactly how important that level is than instead of losing dollars following a stock 20, 30 points after its breakout level. So we started earning season, right? We started earning season. The banks kicked off the earning season. I think it was a Thursday or Friday, Citibank. We have on Monday, nothing really big on Monday. Tuesday you have Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, PNC, more banks. Wednesday is what I'm really concentrating on. Wednesday we have Tesla, right? There's a lot of 13 F filings over the weekend, really, really big money managers taking big stakes in Tesla. You just go through the intake and go through Twitter. You'll see a lot of filings over this week, BlackRock, Fidelity, people taking some positions. Again, they were coming from the 300 calls very, very aggressively ahead of earnings, ahead of Wednesday earnings. They did come out with that pretty good PR after the close about rolling out the first Gigafactory, finally done in Texas. It was a stock going to get a run, pre-earnings run going into next week. I mean, the chart looks great, right? The chart looks absolutely great. It could definitely, definitely get a run into the earnings. Is it possible we see 300 ahead of earnings? Sure, absolutely. We'll talk about that. Netflix also comes out with earnings on Wednesday as well. And I believe IBM as well. IBM, and then you've got Goldman Sachs as well. And then throughout the week, next week, the following week, you have pretty much everybody else. The following week, the apples of the world, the Metas, the Amazon, so forth, the Google, so forth, and so on. But the question is going into this earnings season is, well, now we had this massive run, right? We had this absolutely massive run. Again, NVIDIA is probably the poster boy of this parabolic moonshot that we've having. The question is, is this baked in, right? Is that always the question going into earnings season? And you could only speculate. You could only guess. But speaking of the options market, right? NVIDIA, we saw ahead of earnings, okay? They're buying the 500 calls. And keep this in mind. This is after the stock went from 298 to 480, they're going aggressive into the 500 calls, right? A name like Netflix that had, you know, a really nice run, you know, they're betting the 500 calls as well. So it's very, very interesting to see is the market completely in La La Land is just discounting every bit of reality just doesn't want to come in no matter what. They're bidding it into euphoria. It doesn't make a difference. Or is it this time around a scenario that, well, maybe the earnings are baked in and maybe it's time to have a good, healthy pullback? Again, I don't know the answer to that. We're just, you know, we're just thinking out loud. Our jobs as traders is to always put ourselves in the position that we're not trading with, you know, rose-colored glasses. We're trading based on common sense and data. So it's very good to be very, very interesting to see when Tesla and Netflix kicks off earnings, especially after their runs as well. You know, how high is this euphoria is really being gauged. And obviously to the follow leap, we'll see everything else with Amazon, Apple, MetaGo on Google, so forth and so on. So here we are on the indexes, right? And again, I try to look at the market from a day to day basis. Okay, even though I'm extremely bullish as well, you guys have been watching these broadcasts. You know, I always look at the market and say, is the market tired, at least for the next day? Okay, I don't know what's going to happen two days from now, three days from now. Hell, I don't know what's going to happen Monday, but I'm always prepared on both sides of the market. And I look at the market on Friday and I turn around and go, well, look at all these reversals towards the end of the day, right? Yeah, Qs basically went from, you know, 82 to 78 in the last hour. NVIDIA literally just fell off a cliff. NVIDIA just literally went from 480 to 450. This is in the last hour, right?  Look at the move, it went from 122 all the way down to 115. And the question was, was this an exhaustion cycle, right? That's the major, that's the only thing I have to try to figure out for Monday. Was this is an exhaustion cycle? Was this a scenario that too much too fast? I think we need to break or is this one of those scenarios that, hey, who knows? Maybe some program trading kicked in in the afternoon. They talked about some rebalancing. I know the rebalancing is not wasn't for Friday. It's for a couple of weeks out. Maybe had something to do with that.  It's all speculation. I'm not smart enough to understand. I don't think anybody's smart enough to understand how the market goes on a second by second hour by hour basis. We're just taking the closing prices and trying to formulate an opinion going into Monday. Here's how I look at it, right? Here's how I look at it, right? Look, if this was a short term, when I mean short term, I mean literally short term. If this was a short term kind of an exhaustion cycle, then yeah, you know what? I do want to watch some of these stocks on the bottom of the range going into Monday. Is it possible, you know, this was an outlier event and we continue to go up Monday? Of course. Again, that's why I'm prepared on both sides of the market, but I want to watch the queues, right? I want to see what happens here. Guys, write down this number. $378 on the queues. There's no macro implications on it. Usually I talk about macro levels when it's coming out of a channel or breaking down a channel. This was just the previous day's range. Watch the $378 level on the queues. If the queues start coming in below the $378 level and they start building below, which basically means price action is taking place below Friday's lows, maybe we do get a back test for one or two days and the way these stocks have been in orbit, maybe the back test could be very, very aggressive. Again, you could only make a plan. We can't control the price action. We could only make a plan and see if that confirms. Let's watch that $378 level on the queues. If we're watching the queues $378, a lot of these stocks are going to correlate with the queues. For example, I'm watching the video. The video had this ridiculous 30-point pullback. Let's keep an eye on this thing. If the video starts losing Friday's channel, and you can see on the 60-minute view, if it starts losing this whole channel here, hey, this stock just ran up like 1,000 points. Why can't we get 5, 10, 15-point move on the video? Something like this I definitely, definitely want to watch. A name like Tesla, I still think they're going to run this thing ahead of its numbers. It broke out on Friday. This is the highest close in this whole formation. I want to watch this thing above Friday's channel in case they start really ramping up the stock ahead of numbers. A name like LITE, I'm not really familiar with the name, but hey, look at the setup here. The stock lost its range on Friday. It touched a 50-day moving average. If this thing starts losing the 50-day moving average, who the hell knows? Maybe this thing can get hit. I don't know if Zoom will confirm on Monday, but let's watch it this week. You see how long this distribution channel is? And again, I always like to see what the options market is doing. Let's keep an eye on this thing. If this thing starts getting above this whole channel here, maybe this thing can wake up. They've started coming for the $80 August call, so it's definitely a name that I want to pay attention to. Let me give you guys a couple of more names that I want to watch, and then we'll kind of run through the pivots really quickly from Friday. AI, look at AI. AI had a big, big run. Big, big run. First close below the 20-day moving average. I want to keep an eye on this thing in case the market does have weakness. Maybe this thing gets another pull. And a smaller price name. Look at the stock, FOLD. Nice-looking chart. It's held up for two days in a row. Nice-looking channel here. Look at the weekly view on FOLD. This is getting very, very close into a multi-multi, almost a six-month breakout. So this could be pretty good this week if you're trading smaller names. Keep an eye on that as well. Right, so we're kind of set up for Monday tentatively. I want to see if there is going to be a follow-through from Friday's sell-off, just to give us some cash flow. Again, nobody's talking about Armageddon. Nobody's saying the video is going to go back to 200. We're just taking it trade by trade, trying to take advantage of gravity in the previous days' channels. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. The same way we would take advantage to the upside if the stock was breaking out. We're not trying to guess where it's going to be three weeks from now. We're just trying to get a piece of the pie for Monday. So let's talk about Monday. Let's talk about Friday. As you can imagine, some incredible, incredible moves. Again, congratulations for all you guys. Both Tesla and Microsoft closed above their breakout prices on Thursday, and they both did pretty well, right? So here is Thursday, and again, there's no Thursday video. Thursday's video, they started coming in with size buyers, comes into the 300 calls for a super experienced traders. You can start above 275, but it has to get above 278. It did that, right? It closed well, highest close in the whole formation. Tesla actually started the day down. It was down like $1 and changed pre-market. But once it started getting going, it had two moves. Initial move was like the 280 and a half. That was the June highs. And once it got above the June highs, I think I said there was a potential that you had the 284 and a quarter. Tesla went to 285 and changed. It was a really great job. Congratulations for all you guys who had Tesla. Letter U broke out on Friday. This has been such a really great trader. Nice move. It failed at $48 level. Again, 45 to 848. Great job there. Microsoft 343 needs to build. It confirmed pretty much within 10, 15 minutes into the close. On Thursday, got upgraded. Got upgraded and went all the way up to almost 352. So a huge, huge move there as well. PRLTR didn't confirm. Roblox didn't confirm. TTDO, I didn't trade. I went up a couple of bucks. It was a little too thin for me. Yeah, I went up a couple of bucks and then the market completely just died. Disney never got to 91. Nice move on Google. 12483 needs to build. Here was Google. Took out the 12483. Went to almost 127. Actually held up fairly well. Netflix went up like two, three points and they got just absolutely destroyed. AFRM never got to 18. It's actually pretty interesting. They were coming for next, was it the 7? I can't remember which option series it was. I think it was the August. Can't remember what it was. They were coming for the $21 calls. Keep an eye on this thing, especially if it starts reclaiming 18 bucks. Other than that, really solid action. Really, really solid action all the way around. The most important thing, again, just always remember guys, don't look at it from a euphoric point of view. Always play devil's advocate. Always put yourself in a position that you are playing the defender. I always say this since one of my biggest pet peeves.  It's not peaches and cream. It's not a day at the beach. Sometimes what you're seeing is what you want to see, not reality. I definitely want to be a little bit cautious to at least the start of the week. Watch the queues. Watch a lot of the stocks that are correlated with the queues because if they do start losing Friday's channel, it could get some pretty good value to a downside potential poll. Guys, have a great night, everybody. Have a great remainder of your weekend. And with God's help, I'll see you all Monday.