My name is Sam Vaknin, and yes, I am the author of Malignant Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited. I have made a series of videos about the borderline woman, the female patient with borderline personality disorder. Of course it is true that borderline is also diagnosable among men, but the way it had been defined and treated and studied was pretty frankly male chauvinistic, and several traits and behaviors attributable or attributed to borderline patients reflect cultural and societal mores of the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s when the borderline diagnosis was sort of coalesced around a group of scholars, all of them of course male. There are also value judgments inherent in the diagnosis, et cetera, et cetera, so consequently 75% of people diagnosed with borderline personality disorder have been historically female, and that's why I'm dedicating much more attention to the female borderline patient. Additionally, recent research, the bleeding edge research in psychology tends to demonstrate or to my mind prove conclusively that borderline personality disorder in women is actually another name for psychopathy, FACTO 2 psychopathy, not the male variant which is FACTO 1 psychopathy, not primary psychopathy, but secondary psychopathy. I discussed all these in previous videos, but in all these videos I use one term repeatedly and people have written to me and justly saw that I haven't clarified, I haven't made this term that I'm using rigorous, I'm using interchangeably terms like rejection, humiliation, abandonment, this, that, and I didn't clarify what do I mean by rejection? How do various cluster B personality disorders perceive rejection and how do they react differentially to rejection in different ways? So rejection is of course any situation where a trait, a behavior, an inner process, an external object, an internal object, an emotion, an effect, an expression of emotion, or a cognition, including an emotional cognition, for example wishes. All these are not accepted by someone who has significance in the rejected person's life. So it's not enough to be rejected, you need to be rejected by someone who means something to you. Someone who is present in your life, who feels, caters to important emotional needs, facilitates or catalyzes important psychological processes, psychodynamic processes. In all cluster B personality disorders, there's a problem in relating to an intimate partner. In some of them there's approach, avoidance, repetition, compulsion. In others there's inability to interact with other people as full-fledged human beings. So these patients prefer to interact with internal representations of their intimate partners. In yet other cluster B disorders, there's a problem of developing any kind of emotion, positive emotion like love, intimacy or loyalty, etc. So there are massive, massive problems, almost intractable and foundational problems. In the way patients with cluster B personality disorders relate to intimate partners, and this is because in all these disorders, perhaps with the exception of psychopathy, in all these disorders it's an intertwining of arrested development. The child's development was at some point stopped or seized, and so many of these patients are actually children, psychodynamically speaking, psychologically speaking, the children. A combination, an intertwining of this with attachment dysfunctions or attachment disorders, or at the very least dysfunctional attachment styles, an avoidant type of attachment, a paranoid type of attachment.   Now the only exception might be the psychopath, we'll come to it in a minute. But first when we say rejection by an intimate or significant other, significant intimate partner, we need to ask whether the rejection is real or perceived. Is it sufficient for the rejection to be merely imagined or anticipated, predicted? The answer is yes. Because of magical thinking in cluster B personality disorders, there is no real distinction. There is no distinction between reality, what's happening outside and what's happening inside. The patient's cognitions and emotions are perceived as external entities. And in this sense, Kembeck was right when he said that some of these disorders are on the border of psychosis. There is no, the boundary between out there and in here, this boundary is very blurred. And it's blurred because the child was not allowed to develop boundaries, was not allowed to separate from the parent and individuate. So people with cluster B personality disorders are unboundary, they have severe problems with boundaries. And consequently, everything is one big melange, everything is one big salad, the outside, the inside, external logic, internal logic. So when the cluster B patient imagines abandonment, anticipates it or predicts it, in his mind or her mind, it had already happened. Whether it had really happened or not is meaningless to ask, because the internal environment is perceived as reality, as real as reality. And so the answer is yes, both real rejection and perceived rejection are of equal status with an equivalent, they have the same power. Now this creates enormous problems. First of all, the patient reacts to internal processes which are not transparent to the intimate partner. The intimate partner doesn't know what has happened suddenly. And this is of course the source of modulability and dysregulated emotions. The reactions of the cluster B patient have to do as much with internal dynamics as they have to do with anything, with any external trigger or stimulus. So the intimate partner can be absolutely the same, can be nice and caring and loving and engulfing and ename it. And suddenly his cluster B patient intimate partner goes awar, goes awry and does crazy things, behaves recklessly, cheats on him. I mean, and he doesn't know why. He doesn't know why because of course none of us has access to anyone else's mind. So he doesn't have access to his wife for example, who is a borderline. He doesn't know what has happened to her, why has she changed so much? And in some of these disorders, I mentioned borderline, the changes could be literally from one hour to the next. So it's very, very difficult to cope with this roller coaster. That's from the intimate partner's point of view. From the patient's point of view, the patient needs to be consistently, constantly hyper-visioned. The patient needs to have a kind of radar or always on radar, scanning for possible rejections, scanning for possible humiliation, monitoring, observing, supervising, controlling, making sure that no, no, abandonment is forthcoming, no humiliation or insult, no, and so this process, this behavior is known as hyper-vigilance. Narcissists for example, are very hyper-vigilant because they, because all these patients react to internal processes. The hyper-vigilance is directed not only to the, at the outside, but it's directed at the inside. The patient monitors his or her inner landscape as though it were reality and reacts to this inner landscape magically as though it had transpired in reality, even though no one else around the patient sees anything or observes anything or realizes anything. It's totally crazy, mate. Now, each of the cluster B personalities reacts differently to actual or perceived rejection. The narcissist reacts with narcissistic rage to what he perceives to be narcissistic injury. Rejection, real or imagined, I repeat, rejection is, of course, an undermining of grandiosity, a challenge to grandiosity, because it implies, first of all, that the narcissist is not omnipotent. He cannot control everyone. He cannot micromanage behavior of people around him, and they can reject him, which is an outcome he did not want. And it challenges his omniscience. The narcissist thinks that he's all-knowing, but if he's all-knowing, how could he have, how did he fail to predict the abandonment and the rejection? So rejection challenges all the elements of the narcissist's grandiosity. It also challenges his perfection. He thinks of himself as a perfect being. He's a perfectionist, but also he thinks of himself as a perfect being, like God. So being rejected is implied criticism. It's saying, you know, you're far from perfect. Not only are you far from perfect, but I have found someone who is better than you in the case of cheating, for example. So the narcissist's grandiosity is undermined and challenged so severely and so profoundly that he reacts with panic, in effect, a panic attack, converted into aggression in the form of narcissistic rage. The primary psychopath regards rejection as a mere hindrance or obstacle. Primary psychopaths are very goal-oriented. They're called calculating, scheming, heartless, reckless and callous machines. And so they regard every rejection as a mere obstacle in the way, and they obliterate rejection. They are very vindictive. So they punish the rejecting party. They convert immediately frustration to aggression. That's the Donald hypothesis. They convert to aggression. And then they use this aggression coupled with impulsivity and defiance to punish the source of frustration and, if possible, eliminate him or her. So they go as far as needed. If the rejection is utterly detrimental to the interests of a primary psychopath, primary psychopath will not hesitate to murder the source of frustration. But usually it doesn't come to that. Primary psychopath simply damages the source of frustration and exacts retribution in order to restore the inner balance, restore the cosmic justice. As a psychopath is as grandiose as a narcissist, of course. Psychopathy includes a very pronounced dimension of grandiose. A secondary psychopath is something completely different. Remember that a secondary psychopath actually has empathy and emotions. As far as a secondary psychopath is involved, everything in life is a power play. It's about establishing power matrices. Who is on top? Who is winning? It's a competition. Who will subjugate whom to her or his will? And so rejection is perceived as checkmate, exactly like checkmate in chess. And the secondary psychopath will then become primary having been hurt, having been hurt. Rejection hurts the secondary psychopath the same way it hurts the borderline, which is one excellent reason to think that borderline is actually a secondary psychopath. The secondary psychopath is hurt by rejection, is in agony, excruciating, life-threatening existential pain.  He or she becomes a primary psychopath and then acts as a primary psychopath. Wood, retribution, power, aggression, defiance, destruction, recklessness, hate. So the secondary psychopath is the worst of all worlds. She is as grandiose as a narcissist. As aggressive, dangerous, violent, callous and reckless as a primary psychopath. And suffers miserably is as labile and as emotionally dysregulated as a borderline. That's by far the worst, the worst manifestation of cluster B disorders. A classic borderline personality disorder patient, let's say, for example, a shy personality, a shy borderline. She would experience rejection, she would translate rejection even the slightest rejection. Honey, I can't see you this evening because I have a work dinner. I have a dinner with my boss. Or I suddenly have to travel for three days to New York, I have some things to do. She would interpret this as rejection and immediately interpret catastrophize. She would project extrapolate the rejection to full-fledged abandonment. So in the borderline's mind, every rejection, never mind how minimal, minute and justified is abandonment. And she would react to it disproportionately, catastrophically as if she were abandoned. She would split the object of frustration. She would split, for example, if she has an intimate partner and she wants to talk to him and he can't talk because he's in a meeting. She would immediately interpret this as abandonment. She would say, he doesn't love me anymore, he doesn't like me anymore, he thinks I'm bad. So she splits him, she then sees him as a dead object, a secondary object. She forgets all her love for him, all the caring, all the compassion. She hates his guts. She wants him dead. Splitting is that extreme in classic borderlines. And then the splitting would lead to objecting constancy, would be coupled, I'm sorry, with objecting constancy. Because he's far from sight, he's out of mind. He doesn't exist. She will, in other words, erase him completely. She would convert him into an evil, dangerous, unsafe figure, a villain.   She can undermine him, sabotage him, shame him interrelationally, in other words, for example, in work settings, to his colleagues. She can cheat on him. She can purposefully, ostentatiously cheat on him and let him know that she's cheating, to hurt him. She can do anything. There's no limit to what a borderline can do once she perceives rejection and converts it counterfactually to abandonment. It's a cascade and she's not in control. It's not in control. It usually becomes so extreme that many borderlines dissociate because they know they're doing wrong. They know what they're doing is wrong. They know that they're hurting a person who loves them, but they can't stop. So they forget about it. They cut it off. They dissociate it. And the next morning, the borderline can say, I don't remember what I've done. I absolutely don't remember. Really, I did this. I can't believe I did this. And she feels ashamed and guilty. So it's very ego-distoning. The histrionic, another type of class to be patient, which we increasingly think is actually a psychopath. Generally, we are looking now at class to be, and we think that there are essentially, first of all, essentially there is a spectrum. And that most people have most patients in a mixture of all what we used to call personality disorder. Most people are in a small way narcissistic, somewhat antisocial or psychopathic, somewhat borderline. We believe every class to be patient, we believe there should be a class to be personality disorder. One, with different emphasis and dimensions, not like today these distinctions because the comorbidities are enormous. Most psychopaths are narcissists. So why the distinction?  And that's a psychopath. Or why don't we say there's a psychopath who has emotions? That's a borderline. Why don't we say there's a psychopath who regulates his self-esteem and self-confidence via flirtation and seduction and ostentatious displays of emotionality and her appearance? And that's the histrionic. Increasingly we think that all of them are actually one big soup, one big salad. But the histrionic would tend to interpret rejection as a blow to self-esteem. The histrionic interprets everything as having to do with her self-esteem and self-confidence. She regulates the self-esteem and self-confidence via conquest, via the chase. She's a teaser. She's not really interested in sex or intimacy. She's interested in the process of getting there, getting to sex and intimacy. Actually most histrionic women are freezy. They don't like sex. So the histrionic woman is the woman in the party who would appear half-naked and then she would flirt with all the men, including married men in front of their spouses. And then she would try to seduce some of them, also in front of their spouses. But then she would stop. She would tease them and stop. She interprets rejection as a dysregulatory. It dysregulates her sense of self-worth. It renders her sense of self-worth fluctuating. So exactly like the narcissist, she would resort to men, for example, to seduction, to flirtation, to regulate her sense of self-worth. In many ways, seduction and flirtation are her narcissistic supply. That's the way histrionics react to rejection. You reject a histrionic.  Just to show you that she's desirable, that you are wrong, how wrong you were and that she doesn't need you. She's independent. She can do anything she wants. Now, all these types, all cluster people, personality disorders, somatize. Let me talk a bit about the concept of somatization. Essentially, there are two pathways. Some people communicate with their minds through their bodies and some people communicate with their bodies through their minds. In other words, some people first think they have cognitions, they have emotions, they analyze, they have memories, and then this has effects on their bodies or they make decisions regarding their bodies, to drink, to exercise, whatever. And some people are exactly the opposite. They have no access to their minds because, for example, the mind contains too much pain. So they don't want to go there. They are dissociative. They keep forgetting everything. They are discontinuous. They have problems with the regulation of emotions. Their moods are labeled. So they don't want to go there. Their mind is like a dystopian alien universe and they don't want to enter it. What they do instead, they use their bodies to communicate with their minds. So these are the kinds of people who abuse substances, alcoholics, junkies. They introduce substances into their bodies so as to change their moods, so as to regulate their emotions, so as to provide them with certain traits, for example, sociability. So they use their bodies and their bodies' reactions to substances in order to affect changes in their psyche, in their psychology. Another example is, of course, overeating or eating disorders. It's another way to regulate moods and emotions. And then there is, of course, the whole class of what we used to call conversion symptoms. Apparently medical conditions that have no medical reason. They are psychogenic. They are created by psychology. So someone's arm suddenly becomes paralyzed. It represents something. Freud was the first to describe, not the first, but popularized the concept of conversion symptoms. Of course, in hypnosis, in hypnotic sessions, we create artificially conversion symptoms. So all class-to-be personality disorders, they use their bodies to communicate with their minds. They have no real access to their minds, ironically. They live inside their minds. But they don't have real access to their minds because they keep confusing the mind with reality with the mind. It's exactly like the psychotic. The psychotic is what we call hyperreflection. Psychotic is unable to tell what is his mind and what is reality. That's why he hears voices. His introjects, internal voices, are suddenly projected and externalized. And he hears voices as though they were coming from the outside. It's not very different in the case of class-to-be personality disorders. They are also totally confused about in and out, external and internal. So because of that, the only surefire path to regulation and access is via the body. So you would find that most class-to-be personality disorders, for example, abuse substances, they drink or do drugs. Many of them are focused on their bodies, somatic narcissists, histrionics, bodybuilding, sex. And when they are rejected, they also use their bodies to communicate. So a typical reaction would be to get drunk, or to do drugs, or to go to the gym and have a five-hour fitness session. Or to run 10 kilometers. They would use their body to regulate their internal environment. This is the panoply, the spectrum of reactions to rejection. The human mind is by far the most complex universe there is. The physical universe is not a hint of a fraction of what an average person has here inside. It's a powerful supercomputer, one million of them actually. A typical brain is equal to one million supercomputers. It has more connections than all the atoms in the universe. And it's inside each and every scour. And we don't really respect and honour it. And this is what psychology is all about, gaining this respect via getting to know this most amazing device at our disposal.


So I can think of many talismans in this game that really helps certain builds, and this one is no different. Today guys I'll showcase you a location of a talisman I think will be absolutely vital to many builds out there. It's called The Erdtree's Favour Plus 2. This is a legendary talisman and it raises maximum HP, stamina and equip load all in one. All in one slot guys, this is an absolute must. How's it going guys, my name's DPG and if you do enjoy the video then the like really helps out. And if you like what you see and want to see more out of everything be sure to subscribe. So this Erdtree's Favour Plus 2, legendary talisman. I mean I can see so many benefits to this. I mean I made a, well a short video just showcasing items that could seriously help the bleed builds we're seeing. I mean increased stamina really helps that out. I mean HP, why not? This I would have 100% substituted something like this in farming. Although I get more stamina from this, this just gives me more equip load and it gives me HP. Although stamina is about, it's 7 less, which I mean that's, well I can say it's a chunk guys. It's not even that much, but you get almost 70 extra HP of a stack value. The equip load, I mean guys why wouldn't you want this? You may as well get it, it's quite easy to get as well. So yes, this is how you get it guys and I do recommend you doing this. So you need to come to this spot on the map right here, the forbidden lands. And then guys it's as simple as following the path I take on screen now. You don't really have to, well you don't have to fight anything. You seriously don't. So yes, come and get this thing guys and enjoy it. You don't want to miss this. And there we have it guys, a short but sweet video. I hope it helps you out. If it does, leaving a like really helps me out. If you're new around here and want to see more out of everything, be sure to subscribe and hopefully my beauty for people. I will see you on that next one.


So the key here, when we think about how to actually sell ourselves, is not talk about the destination, not talk about the achievements, the accomplishments, list your resume, and everything that you have been able to gain for yourself in life, but instead, sell yourself by talking about the journey. What did you do along the way? What were the doubts you had? What dragons did you slay to get there? How did that goal for yourself actually become a reality? And what made that a goal in your life, instead of just talking about the destination, talking about how you got there, actually makes you not only appear more confident, but it makes you more charismatic when meeting other people. And that is also something that I, as a public speaker, see a lot at events like TEDx and so on, where people will say, well, that speaker was really confident, like all of the speakers were really confident. And that is true. They're definitely, I mean, it definitely takes some confidence to be able to stand in front of a couple of thousand people and give you a talk. But the reason these people are perceived rightfully as confident is that as a good speaker, you don't talk about the accomplishments. You don't talk about, I did this, I did this, I did this, I did this. You structure your talk by saying, this was my dream. This is what I struggled with. These were the obstacles. Here's where I thought I would never be able to get there. And here's what I worked on and here was the support that I got. Here's my journey and here's the destination. Here's the outcome. And then people clap and they hear the outcome, but they remember the story. They remember how someone went through struggles and overcame them, how someone had to grow and learned where and how to do it. And then they walk away from the talk and they say, well, that speaker was really confident. And that speaker most of the time spoke about struggles and ideas and dreams and broken hearts. Michael, here's one that you will remember very well and it's dear to our heart because her research and vulnerability has impacted our show and we use and we talk a lot about that research and data. But Brene Brown got her start. She did a TED talk on her research in vulnerability. And unfortunately for her, she had to be vulnerable in her talk about her research in vulnerability. And when she delivered that TED talk, when it came out, it was very popular, but she was unbelievably shaken up over being vulnerable on that stage and sharing her work. She was talking about the journey that she took in order to do all of that research. She was so terrified and so nervous about how it would be received that she tried to get TEDx to take down that talk. And it blew up because so many people were able to relate to her journey about vulnerability and how uncomfortable she was about vulnerability. And that propelled her into stardom. I mean, that's how she got her break, how her research became so popular. And Brene now is part of that Oprah circle. And also watching that talk, you'll see Brene shows enthusiasm about her research. She shows optimism about what's possible. She's definitely present when she's up there on stage. And she adds that confidence piece by talking about the journey as well as the destination. And that just makes that lady incredibly charismatic up there on that talk that she hoped only 300 people would ever see in its existence. And there's a perfect example of this from a client, Matt, in the X Factor Accelerator, who is a real estate investor, is a part of numerous masterminds with real estate investors who've been in the game for 20, 30, 40 years longer than him, who have way more in assets under management, larger developments. And oftentimes in these situations, he feels this lack of confidence. He feels like he can't stack up to those around him. And of course, if he was to just list off his accomplishments and compare those to others, well, he might actually be less confident in that setting. So what we worked on together was, well, what's the story? Because when he was going to mastermind events, people would ask him, why real estate? Or what's your story? Literally. And he would often find himself saying, well, you know, I got started a few years ago and it's fun. And what we did in working on his story was we decided to focus on the journey. What inspired him to get started in real estate? And what has his journey in real estate created in terms of an opportunity for him? And what he found was he got started in real estate because his dad was a successful businessman. Unfortunately, his dad was so humble, he didn't even know how successful his dad was as a businessman until he passed and he took an internship in his dad's company. And then he realized everything that his dad had built. So that inspired him to go into business. Even after having a few false starts in business, he learned real estate from a mentor and had some success with his first investment. And what he realized on the real estate investment journey was that it actually allowed him to be creative, to tap into his creativity in building deals, finding tenants and creating win-win opportunities for everyone. And it was that creativity and that opportunity to be more creative that inspired him to carry on in the real estate investment game. Now in sharing that story at a recent event, he actually found not only did he feel more confident in himself, but he started to get more questions about his journey and actually interest in the deals he was working on. Whereas previously in going to some of these mastermind events and networking with people, he would find himself being quiet, a little bit standoffish, not knowing what to say and certainly not feeling comfortable selling himself as many of us think selling ourselves is listing our accomplishments. So the next time you're in a situation where you might be surrounded by people who you feel are more accomplished, share your journey instead of the destination and you'll find that you not only appear more confident, but you actually will feel more confident internally.


Welcome to this new episode of Robustly Beneficial. Today, we're going to discuss paper from the post-eating on national academic of science called exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. And I really, really enjoyed this paper, especially the finding of this paper because it's counterintuitive and it shows just how difficult being robustly beneficial is, especially when it comes to our human interactions and particularly here about political polarization which is a topic on which you can easily have backfire effects. So it's easy to come up with ideas that sound intuitively amazing, but when you test them, well, you can realize that it's actually a trickier, a lot trickier than this. The basic idea of this intervention at this study comes from the fact that because of recommended system on social media, we mostly see the same type of content that we are already used to because the algorithms have pictured that this is what we are most likely to click like on. So this created the phenomena called eco chambers where if you are Democrat, you will mostly see pro-democrat arguments in your newsfeed. And if you are Republican, you will mostly see pro-Republican argument in your newsfeed. So this amplify how people are politically polarized on social media. And the first idea that came up to fight this is simply to take content from another eco chamber and show it to you in your own eco chamber. This is what the study in this paper? Yeah, I think the idea of breaking the eco chamber and like having these contents from other eco chambers exposed to people who are not from this eco chamber is something that has been promoted a lot. It's called like diversity in recommendations. And it's often recommendations like in many discussions and many papers about how to design more beneficial eco-moderate systems. There's often this mention that we should increase diversity. And it's often like, well, not tested. Like it's often like more of a intuitively good idea that people have is just like you should increase diversity. And I think there's an assumption that this will reduce political polarization. And, well, this paper is very interesting because it shows that it's not that simple. So the way they ran the experiment, they found 1,600 participants. Out of them, they were tested at the beginning of the experiment to measure what side of the political spectrum they fall in. So they had approximately 50-50 participants in each category. And then a category of Republicans and Democrats. Then they took half of each category to subject them to the treatment protocol which consisted in simply following a Twitter bot and seeing messages posted by this Twitter bot which posted 24 retreated 24 messages per day either picked out of a cluster of a Republican's account or picked out of a cluster of Democrat's accounts. At the beginning, a participant were selected based on how much they use Twitter and they only considered participants that use Twitter in average more than three times a week. So they expected that the interaction with the bot of this participant were really good. Participants who were in the treatment condition every week had to answer a small survey, a small test to make sure that they were actually engaging and seeing the message from this Twitter bot. And among these messages, there were some that were not even political, but simply to test. Like the bot was posting an image of an animal and then the participant were asked about what animal was being posted by the bot so that they could measure actually how much participant in the experiment were interacting with the bot. And this lasted for between four and six weeks and then participants were tested again on their political spectrum, the idea were tested again. And so what they found that Republicans were that were interacting with this Twitter bot treating a Democrat content, they became a half a standard deviation, more polarized on their own side and they did not find a statistically significant result for Democrats, but it seems to indicate that it went in the same direction of more polarization. Yeah, this is very bad news. It shows that a simple intervention like this at least is not going to be effective and can even be counterproductive in terms of political polarization. And if you think about this, it kind of makes sense like if you think a little bit more, like it's not clear that if you're exposed to more content from politicians of the party you don't like, it's not clear that this will get you to enjoy this idea as more. And this is not like specific to this study. There are other researches in psychology that show that while you have this backfire effect, this reactance sometimes it's called, where if you exposed to an idea that's too remote from what you believe and especially if this idea is expressed in a very clashy way, in a very harshly, then you can feel that this kind of message is threatening what you believe. And then you can be more in a defense mode, in a soldier mode, while you're trying to defend your ideas you feel like you're under attack. And this can lead you to create the habit in you that you get used to defending your ideas all the time, which can slow down, which can increase polarization and prevent you from better understanding the ideas of the other side of instance. Yeah, so there's a lot of psychological ground and based on this, like I guess it could have been predicted that the result would go this way. When I read this paper, I was not maybe thinking about this psychological background sufficiently. In case I was quite surprised with the results and I think this is something to take into account when designing more robustly beneficial algorithms. I wanted to ask a question, like if you had to design a recommender system and you have these findings in mind and you know the diversifying the feed, just naively diversifying, is not necessarily something that will decrease polarization. So what would be the less naive way to diversify the feed? Like I have a proposition and maybe you can have another one, which is what about, so let's say there's like echo chamber A, echo chamber B. If I show someone from B, a post from A they get, so she or he gets angry on average. How you do it naively. But could we use the finding to spot like when someone from B use the vocabulary of B to promote an idea from A and then spread it to B? Like how easy it is to spot a vocabulary from echo chamber of B? So someone from B spotting with the vocabulary of B, idea is coming from A. Let's say someone who is like completely against, so completely like for the non-intervention of the state. Okay, so someone or she or he is using vocabulary from Reganian politics to promote public healthcare. Yeah. And then if we spot that, we can just show this kind of post to the echo chamber B. And of course, at the other side, someone who uses vocabulary or she's using or he's using vocabulary from public intervention, strong state and public service to promote ideas that might sound from echo chamber B. Yeah, I think this is an interesting proposal. Yeah, so I guess in the end, we need more data. So I think one thing that this paper really shows is that all of these phenomenons are very complex. And we need a lot more data to better understand what are the impacts of this or that kind of recommendation. And maybe also we can stress the fact that while the study like included 1,600 people, I think initially, like not all of the users like followed through and we only have partial data and there's a lot of variability between from one person to another. I agree that this is complex. I just like want to add further speculation. So imagine we do the experience. So we do the experiment and we find like even less intuitive findings like showing someone from echo chamber B an idea from echo chamber A that's promoted with the vocabulary of echo chamber B from someone from the echo chamber B. So instead of making them like the idea, they will just split to echo chamber B prime. Then you'd have B, B prime and A, A prime just add more echo chambers instead of solving the polarization problem. I don't know, this is just speculation. Yeah, so definitely. I'm sure the phenomenon is so complex that doing the experiment would lead to another non-intuitive finding. As Les said, we need more data and we also want that while collecting this data, we also want to be algorithms to be beneficial. And the way to do this is something we discussed already several weeks ago using a multi-ambandage algorithm. So the idea of this is simply that there will be an algorithm doing the experiments to collect data, but doing it in a way that to reducing its own uncertainty on what are good intervention and not maybe the intervention you propose maybe is going to be a good one. So in that case, the algorithms will use this intervention, observe that this intervention is doing what we desire it to be doing and select more and more this intervention as time goes by. If there is no other intervention that's even better than this one. If we realize an intuitive result that this intervention you propose is a negative one, then the algorithms using a multi-ambandage exploration would lower the number of time that it actually does this intervention because we see that it's not a beneficial intervention. Yeah, and another thing like these are things that we already discussed in other episodes more dedicated to these different topics. But another thing we discussed in a very earlier episode was the problem of long-term effects. And this is particularly striking for these kinds of phenomenons of political polarization which take over, which lasts for months. This is not like you're watching your content and right after that you become polarized. It's more like a subtle step-by-step but after a month important phenomenon. And yeah, AB testing and multi-ambandage is not necessarily going to be why it has its limits when it comes to long-term effects. So it's very complicated, unfortunately, but we need to like power, I think it's very, very important. That's the thing is both very hard but it's also very important. So we really need to put a lot more means and data collections about these things if you want to make progress. And I think this is like a research area that's where you need a lot of disciplinarity. Of course it has to do with politics and sociology but it also has a lot to do with psychology the way we interpret different things and also with data and social networks. So yeah, all of these expertise have to be combined and fortunately I'd say it's not an area of research that's investigated enough, I'd say so far. Yes, so to take for instance, the example of Medi like another risk that I could imagine would be that while the two sides agree on the same ideas because they're using different vocabularies they may still feel like they are in contradiction with the other side and they would still be clashing even though they actually agree but just the difference of vocabulary can make things very hard at times. Another type of intervention that we discussed was simply pushing people to think more in terms of nuance and uncertainty because it's very dramatic that people on two opposite side are overly confidently convinced that they are right and that others are wrong and certainly the right way to think about these kind of issues is to be in the middle to understand that there is a difficult trade off between a positive and negative arguments and that it's a very difficult debate instead of simply focusing on the arguments that people like to hear and using their confirmation bias being confidently convinced of their own idea. Yeah, one thing we discussed was this idea that when it comes to politics it's very easy to fall into this soldier mode where you instead of trying to understand problems better you're going to defend your ideas and you're going to try to stick to your ideas. So what is this book? This book about soldier mode versus scout mode why intuitively when you're in soldier mode and this has to do with what they are like neurobiological explanations from like connections with neurobiology like apparently the amid data that's responsible to the fear is really activated when you're talking about politics and you can really think of this as you are really to fight and to defend your ground. And so when it comes to politics like it's like there's this line or this political line and as soon as the topic becomes political we try to cling to where we are we try to stick to where we are and we're defending our position and that's not the ideal framework for exploration, for understanding for sharing different ideas. And so instead of that like instead of getting these people in this mode like it's probably before getting them to slide on this line like a prior step should probably be like to get everybody to sort of stand up like to rise above their position to be willing to move a little bit in the sense and the way to do this would probably not by directly talking about politics but maybe by proposing a content that are more like engaging in terms of curiosity they are intriguing that will make people think things that maybe are more meta as well like they would get people to think about how they think and how others are thinking. Maybe like the best way to fight polarization would be something along these lines but yeah, again for the research and more data collection is needed to understand all of this better. So thank you for listening to our podcast. Next week we will discuss the recently added new entry on AI ethics in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Thank you for listening, bye bye.


And then you've got these who owes you. So the accounts receivable, aging detail, the accounts summary, these are typically internal reports, meaning oftentimes we might not be generating these reports if we're gonna patch them up and give them to a client because they may not want to know the receivable detail unless they have a specific need for that. It's not part of the normal financial statements. I mean, it could be if you get into a detailed audit, you know, audited financial statement, but oftentimes these are gonna be more internal kind of reports, such as collection reports, internal report, customer balance detail, usually gonna be an internal report, customer balance summary, typically that's for internal use to help us to collect and so on the open invoices, that's usually for internal reporting purposes, not usually something we're gonna be patching together to present to a client on a monthly basis and so on for those items. So notice that we did, however, make this customer balance summary into a pie chart, right? So that is one of those things that we could make into like a pie chart and say this is who owes us what from the customer side, but most likely the more popular pie charts are gonna be the sales related pie charts if you're gonna be adding one. So that's gonna be down here.


Nice to see you again. I wish you could have brought us a winner with the browns.  Now the Redskins will win. And you know that for giving me that sweatshirt that I displayed or that jersey rounds on Congresswoman Schrader up on the hill. Oh yeah, well I delivered to me a pair of flamboyant shorts underwear with a Denver Bronco. I think the sweatshirts were out of pose. Yes, I told her when she mentioned that she had seen that. I said well I can hardly take down my trousers. And my brother Michael, they do sir. Nice to see you again. And my sister Ellen. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. And her husband Kent. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. I think he wants us all to go behind it. Behind it? Behind it. Yes. I'll be somewhere in the middle of the van. Tell us where you're going. The president will be right here and half of me on the left and half on the right. What? Here? Why don't we get one more? There we go. Mark, you're not going to ruin this photo. Mark, come on now. It's like a wedding picture. Thank you. Thank you. Well, we're going to pretty hard. Does he complain? Because every minute of that. Every minute of that. And if he doesn't, we have. We can try every minute of that. Absolutely. I have some souvenirs here for you. First of all, you two have been doing well. They're glasses. They're speechless. Is this being taken? Oh my goodness. What did you say? These are incense. Thank you, sir. It certainly will. Thank you very much. That'll do it. Thank you. Look at me to circle. Oh, gee. You've got to work anyway. I don't care anything. Back to work. Back to work. All right. I would tell you he's maintaining our cholesterol. When we go to Camp David, none of the movies. He's the one that pushes the candy for us. We did it again.  She'll bring you to Camp David. No nuts. No nuts. Is that right? Okay. You were the candy by it. No jelly beans. No nuts. No. No. In a brittle. In a brittle is what I don't care anymore. No. No one. Or popular. Or popular. That's what I mean. We all have the same. What? Well, because of him. He insisted that I could reach out. Sometimes you have to listen to your children. Sometimes. But he insisted. He wouldn't let a day go by. He didn't call every day. Well, I went to the club. Thousands of people started. Yeah. They make me go every year. I go back and watch them. I don't know whether it's something. I'm going to show you. If I'm still in my waste bin, it's right there. It's my birthday coming up. And I have to get something out. And I don't know whether it's just in Washington or whether it's a whole nation wide. Have you seen these cards? The greeting cards? No. Wonderful. That one. That one. That one. That one. That one. That one. They've got a frame. Yes. That's the product. That's the shithole and the brother. I like her shorts on it. That's right. I think that's my son and his body that I got. Do you remember one year that Saturday night? Oh, yeah. I think that's where they got that picture. Put my hat on. That's wonderful. I like my sincere streaming. You've got to show the present. Well, thank you very much. Well, it's a great pleasure to see you again. Thank you. Thank you. It's always such a joy to be here. It's a good time. And happy birthday to you. Be mature. Be mature and happy birthday. Thank you. Well, thank you. And if you can't hear me, I'll tell you, thank you also for your son. Thank you really. Thank you. You're doing a job. Thank you. Thank you. Very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


School is still hours away but the kids of Mornington Island are sitting down to a valuable lesson in life skills. Having breakfast, all 50 of them. For some, this will be their only meal of the day. There's been levels of tragedy and sadness that probably seldom experienced in the mainstream community. Three years ago, kids like these were killing themselves and turning to crime as a way of life. Then Police Sergeant Dave Ives arrived and set about fixing the problem. A lot of the kids being unsupervised on the street late at night, not getting to bed until maybe two or three o'clock in the morning. With some willing helpers, they've become de facto parents, teaching the kids right from wrong. At the end of the day, that the kids no matter what know that there's somebody here that really cares for them. The plan was simple. School is a must but once it's over, it's game on back at the PCYC.   Sometimes their parents think they're naughty but they're not naughty at the PCYC. Into the night, it's noodle hockey but there are movie nights, discos and rules. No swearing, no fighting. Parents are being educated too about how to look after their children. In some cases, just how to feed them. The turnaround has been staggering. By simply giving these kids something to do, there hasn't been one commit suicide and crime, well, what crime? This is not rocket science. As I said, you take any group of intelligent, fun loving kids and you give them nothing to do. Well, the boredom is the recipe to disaster. A disaster now averted, a generation saved thanks to the work of people like Sergeant Dave Ives. Tony Fabris, 9 News.