The radical. Fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Book Show. Oh, hey, everybody. Welcome to Iran Book Show. The last, the last news roundup of 2022. This new feature, we're going to go right into 2023 with it and hopefully you're enjoying it and get value out of it because we're going to stick with it. We'll see on how frequently we do it, but we will stick with it through 2023, at least the beginning of the year. So thank you all for joining me. Of course, one way you can make sure that we stick with the news roundup is you make sure that we, you help make sure that we achieve our goals of $250 a show in Super Chat. So, yes, here we are. End of the year. It's hard to believe. It's crept up on me. December's gone by way too fast. So many things I expected to do in December. I've not even got to. I'm going to have to slow down next week just to catch up. I think the mistake was thinking I could launch the news roundup, which is daily, which means I have to get ready with news and all of that on a daily basis and get all the other stuff I expected done and wrap up the year in all kinds of other realms all at the same time without any problem. It turns out more difficult than I expected. All right, first news item I think today is a, I guess, a celebratory one ultimately. And that is the news of the passing of Pelé. Celebratory not in the sense that he passed away, but in the sense of celebrating a life. And Pelé, the Brazilian soccer player, football player, is an amazing, I think, historical figure. Suddenly in the realm of sports, one of the great historical figures of all time. He elevated soccer, made it into an international sport. You know, Brazil and Pelé created what today is referred to as the beautiful game. They were amazing to watch. Pelé as a player was truly stunning. In many ways, I think it's unfortunate that Pelé was never allowed to really play outside of Brazil until after he retired. Then he came to play in the United States, but he kind of, in his prime, he didn't have an opportunity to play in the European leagues, where I think he would have excelled and brought that kind of style of game to Europe. He played most of his careers in one, for one team in Brazil, took it to some of the big championship. He won the World Cup three times. Truly an exceptional athlete. I've always thought the best soccer player, football player in the world, you could argue that Maradona and Messi up there with them, maybe better, maybe not, but just amazing. Different errors, different styles, different conditioning. But those three without a question, Pelé, Maradona, Messi are the three greatest players to ever play the sport. It's sad to have him pass, but it's also a time to celebrate. He passed at the age of 82. He had a full life and played into his 30s, played in the United States in his final game, the final game of his career. It was the US team versus his original Brazilian team, and he played half for the US team, half for the Brazilian team. Very emotional. Anyway, passing of great athletes, and I have fond memories because I, you know, grew up as a little boy in the Pelé era. I remember watching him on television when Brazil won the World Cup in 1970 and then followed his career a little bit in the 1970s. When he was no longer much of a player in the international field, that's why I regret that he didn't play in Europe. But he was then in America, so I did get to follow him a little bit. All right, from the sublime, at least in terms of sports, to the absolutely unbelievable, unbelievably ridiculous and pathetic, but it's in the news. It's everywhere. It's all over Twitter. It was on Google News, the first item on Google News this morning. This is the story of Andrew Tate, Greta Thunberg, and the Romanian police. Those of you who don't know Andrew Tate, I apologize for introducing you to him. Your life is much better off not knowing who he is. Andrew Tate is a bombastic showman, misogynist, made a huge amount of money. He was originally a world champion kickboxer, very, very successful in kickboxing, and then made a huge amount of money basically with webcams, porn-style webcams, and ultimately evolved into only fans, and they took their money. It's one of these, how do you make money? You teach people how to make money. That's how you make money. And Andrew Tate, a lot of his wealth comes from coming up with bogus courses on how to teach people how to make money. But if you get enough students, if you get, if you convince through all kinds of mechanisms, primarily marketing, that you can convince people that you can teach them how to make money, they'll give you a lot of money and you'll get very, very wealthy. I think this is what Andrew Tate has done. I haven't really dug in. He's a horrible human being who has attracted a massive number of fans among young right-wing men, primarily because of his hatred of the left. Oh, Yaron, what are you doing? Anybody who hates the left is one of the good guys. He's on our side, not in my book.  He's also, as I said, a misogynist. And just from everything I could tell, just generally a horrible human being.  He moved to Romania a few years ago and he admitted to move to Romania because Romania has much looser laws with regard to rape. So it's an opportunity for him, I guess, to abuse young women. Andrew Tate has become very famous on social media. He's got a massive following on Twitter. Again, young men, confused men, men who don't know what to do with women, how to deal with women, men who do not have the self-esteem to deal with wealth creation, that's true wealth creation, to deal with relationships that are true relationships, get sucked into disgusting human beings like Andrew Tate. But there he is, very successful, big money, with a lot of money, flies around in private jet, has 30-something cars, super successful. Anyway, that was just background.  So we got two pretty despicable human beings here that I deeply dislike, Andrew Tate and Greta, very different, very, very different in every respect. Of course, Greta is now already 20 years old or 1920, so she's grown up, hasn't changed, still the same angry Greta.  He writes, Andrew Tate writes, and again, this is why Dwayne Wayne likes him so much, because he trolls people like Greta.  Anyway, Andrew Troll wrote, hello Greta Thunberg, I have 33 cars, my Bugatti has a, you know, 16, whatever, 8 liter quad turbo, my two Ferraris 812, Contra Prisanna have 6.5 liter engines versus, and 12 cylinders, this is just a start. Please provide your email address, I can send a complete list of my car collection and their respective enormous emissions. So this guy is just rubbing into Greta the fact that he emits a lot of carbon, so, but what's the point? What does this gain other than trolling Greta? So Greta, who is no idiot, comes back and says, yes please do enlighten me, email me at smalldickenergyatgetallife.com, which everybody takes as, oh man, she got one over him, and this becomes a huge YouTube thing, and this conflict between Greta and Andrew Tate, so they're both insulting each other, very adult, very argument-oriented, very intellectual, very persuasive. Anyway, and this is how we're meeting, police get involved.  Now it turns out that Andrew Tate is wanted by Romanian police, and they did not know he was in Romania. Now, this is a story that I'm reading, I don't know if this is true or not, but this is the story, they didn't know he was in Romania, but when they saw the video he sent Greta, in the video he sent Greta, there are pizza boxes, pizza from Bucharest, that is the capital of Romania, where he lives, where he moved to, so he could have loose rape laws. Anyway, the police noticed that he was not in Romania, and this is true, they raided his home, arrested him and his brother, and two other Romanians for people who were arrested. They were arrested in Bucharest on suspicion of, quote, human trafficking, rape, and forming an organized crime group.  It's sad that nothing negative happened to Greta as a consequence of this, it would be nice to have a complete justice, and everybody getting their due. When somebody moves as a UK passport, an American passport, decides to live in Romania, somebody who probably is running some kind of porn ring and everything else, you know something is up primarily because of this reason. This is a bunch of bad people having bad stuff happen to them, and Andrew Tate will pay a lot of money to the lawyers. Hard to tell, Romania probably has a pretty corrupt legal system, but now the world is watching, so we'll probably get a real trial. We'll see what happens, we'll see what happens, but my suspicion is that this suspicion of human trafficking rape is probably not outrageous and probably based on some real facts, and that he's in real trouble. Anyway, let's hope that the hundreds of thousands of young men who follow him, maybe millions, I don't know, hundreds of thousands of men who pay for hustle TV to learn how to become rich, understand it maybe becoming rich and routine style, also has the potential to land you in jail. All right, talk about rich people. Joe Biden is vacationing over the holidays in the US Virgin Islands with at some property owned by some of your billionaire friends, so they are, you know, him and his Biden and his family, maybe hunters there, I don't know if hunters there, are all in some luxurious location in the American Virgin Islands, actually not far from where I am right now, US Virgin Islands, it's not far from Puerto Rico, and probably lounge around on the beach, having a good time, schmoozing with billionaires, and talking about billions, talking about billions this bill that the House passed, the $1.7 trillion bill was flown to the US Virgin Islands at taxpayer expense, it's okay, it's budgeted, it's in the $1.7 trillion, and where Joe Biden signed it, so we now have a budget going into 2023 of $1.7 trillion, that's with the T, trillion dollars, in a year where most of us lost a lot of money in our 401Ks in a year with the stock markets, depending on what index you follow, has lost anywhere between 15 to 30 something percent, and if you had most of your earnings, most of your wealth in Tesla, maybe over 70 percent, lost over 70 percent of your wealth, the federal government seems pretty flush in a year where we anticipate the US might be heading into a recession, where people are likely to lose their jobs, and where things are, things might be pretty rough for most households, given the decline in their net worth, and the decline in their portfolios. The United States government is alive and well, and growing, and continuing to spend like there was no tomorrow, $1.7 trillion on top of the four plus that they spend on social care, Medicare and interest payments on the debt, up to around $5 trillion in total budget, no thought to shrinking government spending in a time of inflation. That's another thing, of course, going into next year with inflation at relative highs, at least highs since the 1970s, where Americans are struggling to pay the bills, where, yes, wages for some jobs are going up quite a bit, and I guess Congress felt like, hey, why not, let's spend more money. This is partially a consequence of monetary theory that gives people both on the left and on the right the illusion that government debt doesn't matter, that spending money is a good thing, that the more we spend, the better. It's also a combination of Keynesian economics, where the idea is that if you're heading into a recession, the best thing to do is for the government to spend more money because consumption, government consumption in this case is the way to fight recessions. So let's do it. Let's spend the money. But just a complete evasion of the state of the finances of private Americans and the state of the finances of the federal government, nobody cares. Nobody cares. No conception of economics, no caring about economics, no caring about debt. And the model that the federal government represents to all of us and to young people, debt doesn't matter. Take it on. Load it up. Who cares? Wealth is just airy. It's paper money. No wonder. Andrew Tate is so beloved by so many people when wealth creation counts for nothing. So really economically, the state of the country in the world is truly horrible, not from the numbers, right? The economy is doing fairly well and employment is high. But we're setting ourselves up for a bigger and bigger fall. And a lot of us who claim this, it keeps saying yes, but you said that last year and you said that the year before, but it can't continue. You can't just take on more and more and more debt with no end. Modern monetary theory is untrue, untrue. And the fact is that if you think there is a physical component to inflation, and I think there is, part of the impact of taking on more and more and more debt, part of the impact of not even caring anymore about the perception of paying it back one day, part of the consequence of that is more inflation. And more inflation means the Fed will increase interest rates even more, which means an even deeper recession. So I don't know. It's hard to tell exactly how next year will evolve, but it doesn't look good. While Keynesianism is basically supported by everybody, almost all economists out there, Keynesians of one form or another. And again, this is not like Republicans against lots of government spending and Democrats afford. It's all of them afford. Democrats have the added side of believing in MMT, which takes Keynesianism into a whole different dimension. We will see. We will live the consequence of this in 2023. We will see what happens. All right, quickly, I want to remind you that tonight I'm doing a members only show. You can still become a member. So you can join by clicking the join button just underneath there. You can join at 4.99. I know a couple of people already joined before the show started today. So feel free to join and you can participate in tonight's show. It'll be, it'll be nice because it'll give us the opportunity to, I think, to have a more intimate chat of people who support the show. It'll also be nice, you know, so it'll be, it'll also be a perk for you guys. You'll be able to ask questions and just interact more freely with me. We'll be talking about how to change the world, ideas. I'll be taking your ideas. We'll have a conversation. It should be, it should be fun. So hopefully you guys can join me 7 p.m. east coast time. And I think the link for those of you who are members, the link can be found up top. It's been pinned up there by Miroslav. So you can find it right up there. Yeah, join me. I plan to do these once a month. I'm most curious about what kind of topics you guys would like me to cover. And also about what time of day or evening or week you would like these shows to be. We're pretty flexible. I've got a pretty systematic program now of when I'm going to do regular shows. When would you like the special member show? I just picked a Friday. It doesn't have to be a Friday evening. Probably it's not the best time for you guys. But I'm curious in your input about what the best time is. All right, just a an interesting little tidbit. We have an oversupply of history PhDs in the United States. Now, this is probably true of all humanities. There's probably an oversupply of philosophers and a lot of others. But according to, let's see, according to higher ed inside higher ed magazine, there is dramatic oversupply of PhDs in history. Between 2019 and 2020, 1,799 historians earned their PhD degrees. 1,799 historians earned their PhD degrees. That's just in the United States. 1,799. Only 175 of them are employed as full-time faculty members. You get a PhD usually to become a university professor. But there were only 175 job openings and only 175 got full-time faculty members. Some of those people will get tenure, some of them will not. Therefore, there were 1,624 PhDs in history that don't have a job or don't have a full-time job. Some of them might be adjuncting. Some of them might become history teachers at high schools. I don't know what the rest are doing. I found this little tidbit in Barry Weiss's The Free Press, and she writes, I guess this is kind of funny, that some of them are cornering people at otherwise normal dinners to explain how their thesis shows mid-century modern furniture is homophobic. I thought that was funny, but I think many PhD thesis are very narrow, very limited in scope, very specialized, and many of them are probably very woke as well. Why do we have a market failure in PhDs in history? By the way, the same phenomenon in philosophy and many other humanities. We have a lot of people devoting a lot of money and a lot of time and a lot of effort to producing PhDs knowing, I mean, if they had brains, I guess, knowing that they will never get a job. I would venture to say that the 175 PhDs in history that have full-time faculty jobs all come, I'm going to guess here, from the top 20 universities ranked based on their history program. That is, universities higher professors, higher full-time professors, almost exclusively in fields like history, philosophy, and others, from the very, very, very top universities. If you go to a second tier, I'm not talking about third, fourth, fifth tier, I'm talking about a second tier university and getting a PhD in a humanities program, you're almost guaranteed never to have a job. So why do they do it? Partially, they delude themselves into thinking they're special and they will get a job. But most of it is because they don't think. And because of government programs and because of massive subsidies that academia receives, it probably doesn't cost them very much to get a PhD. They probably receive some kind of scholarship. Government provided scholarship of one form or another. And they also probably work a little bit as a teaching assistant or something like that and they get a small amount of money. They're probably people who enjoy student life and don't need a lot of money or don't want a lot of money or they have money from another source, family or something. They like being students and they probably spend, I don't know, five, six years getting their PhD. And they probably don't think much about it.   And then suddenly they're confronted when they finished a PhD with, whoa, I actually need to go work now. And by the way, I won't be able to work at the fun stuff that I've been doing all this time. I'm going to have to find another job. And whoa, I have no idea what that is. So it's a market failure you could see. But in a real market, nobody would subsidize an oversupply of graduates. And one would suspect in a real market where they'd have to pay, graduates would be more sensitive to their job prospects. And maybe universities might subsidize them to some extent because they get cheap labor to service TAs. But you've got to believe that if everything was privatized, the government would stop paying scholarships and giving student loans and all this stuff. And universities would run knowing that they had to survive. And that would elevate people's general consciousness about work and about education. And maybe people then consider the job prospects. So I suspect there's a lot more going on here. So we have, I don't know, 1,624 people every year who don't have a job running around who are super articulate, super educated, maybe settled debt, maybe not, and who think they know a lot and probably don't. And who knows what professions they're going to go in.  Okay, quick positive news item. And then we'll go to your questions. MIT signed on to a freedom of expression statement, a statement that it was made popular by the University of Chicago years ago during the political correctness era. And has been continued into the woke era. The University of Chicago has committed itself to robust debate, deliberation, dissent as part of what's required for academic excellence. MIT signed that pledge similar to the Chicago pledge. And we'll see if it can hold on to that. You'll see if they can survive the pressure. But good sign. It's always good when some of our top universities commit themselves to free expression, academic freedom, real academic freedom, deliberation, debate, disagreement, and robust engagement. Those are good things. And so congratulations to MIT. Everything is not completely bleak and falling apart in the world. There are still bastions here and there of better places. I'm not surprised that it's MIT that signed this and not Harvard. All right. Quick, two quick announcements. One, tonight is a member's only show. You can become a member right now and join the show tonight by clicking on the join button below. It's below the video. And you can easily become a member. And it's not that expensive to become a member or the variety of different levels at which you become a member. But all levels are invited to tonight's show. The link to tonight's show is also on top there, but you do have to be a member for that link to work as far as I understand. Also, tomorrow is the 31st. I will be doing my year-end show. So it'll be a review of 2022 and looking forward to 2023. Please come with your review things. Questions you have about the year, questions you have about the future. But also, do you have a favorite movie, favorite book you read, favorite Iran book show episode? That would be cool. What was your Iran book, favorite Iran book show episode of 2022? I'd be curious about that. Let's try to make it a fun show. We've got a $10,000 match for anything raised during the show. So it'll be a great super chat opportunity, which reminds me, Noel, thank you for the supports. It reminds you that these news roundups have $250 kind of targets for support, which I would really appreciate if we met every day so I could justify doing these every day. It's a lot of work and a lot of energy and focus. Now, I understand that because of the show tomorrow, some of you are holding back because you're going to support the show tomorrow and I appreciate that. But starting January 1, we're going to have to hit our targets so that I can sustain this level of activity. But it's going to be a good show tomorrow. It's going to be fun. Again, I want a lot of engagement and it's year-end. It'll be a celebration.  We'll take questions at all levels, but to get to $10,000, we're going to need a lot of questions. We're going to need a lot of dollars. So please come prepared. If you want to support the Iran book show, if you got value out of the Iran book show in 2022, I'd appreciate it if you joined us tomorrow and showed your appreciation. All right, JJ Jigby's has a question, a $20, let's see. I once worked a catering event where I saw a boy no more than 10 years old watching and rotate videos on his phone. Oh my God, that is so horrible. The adults at the table were oblivious. As long as he's distracted and have to be quiet, I guess. Oh, that's just horrific to talk about grooming, to train young kids, to have young kids engage with this horrible, disgusting content. This is part of how the world deteriorates. And it really is the adults in the room's fault. They should be watching. They kids carefully and monitoring what kind of quote entertainment they consume. All right, Wyatt 516, still trying to get sanctioned. If Jordan Peterson doesn't interview someone at TAES, for example, is it then wrong for someone at AOI to do his show? No. I don't expect Jordan Peterson to understand the difference between the TAES, TAES is the Atlas Society and an AOI. That's an internal thing. I expect people who associate with the AOI to get the difference. I expect objectivists to get the difference, but I don't expect Jordan Peterson to get the difference. The issue of sanction is, is this other perspective, is this other set of views something that you accept as debatable, reasonable, within the scope of something that is acceptable to debate and discuss? I think that's true of Jordan Peterson. I think it's true for Jordan Peterson to view Atlas Society that way. It's not true for me to view the Atlas Society that way, given that I view the Atlas Society as committing fraud. You don't sanction a fraudster. So for example, take business. If you're trying to hire a CFO and you've got this candidate, really smart, really bright, really articulate, really knows the books, but he's committed fraud in the past. Are you going to hire him? No. You're not going to sanction the fact that he committed fraud.  That's it. That ends his career from my perspective as ever being a chief financial officer. It doesn't end his career necessarily as a human being, but it certainly ends his career. Nobody would hire somebody who's committed fraud in a business. I consider the Atlas Society as committing fraud, fraud versus Ayn Rand versus Ayn Rand's ideas versus Ayn Rand's legacy. I will have nothing to do with them. I won't sanction them as an organization because if you are looking for suppliers and you believe one of the organizations that could supply you with materials, you believe they haven't been convicted of this, but you believe that they commit fraud. Would you do business with them? No. Would you recommend them as one of the people in the industry that, I don't know, that is in your industry that is credible in your industry? No. I mean, in business, the issue of sanction is clicker. Clicker. The people who do business in ways that you find despicable and you won't associate with them and you won't have anything to do with them. And you won't. And the same with intellectual pursuits. The people who hold ideas that are so despicable, so horrible that you won't have anything to do with them. You shouldn't have anything to do with them. The people who commit what you believe is intellectual fraud, you won't have anything to do with them. The people who you disagree with, but you don't hold as so despicable or as committed fraud and therefore you'll debate with them. You'll engage with them. And we can disagree about which level those people are at, which different people are at, which level. But there has to be a category of people that are equivalent of your supplier who you believe is defrauding his customers and therefore you won't do business with them. That's my point. I talked about Pillay Frank at the beginning of the show. So just rewind the show and I talked about Pillay. I'm a huge Pillay fan. I still think he's the greatest of all time. But you know, I'm not an expert. It's just emotionally for me, given when I grew up, he was the best of all time. Jeffrey Miller says for $20 money shows must continue for the rest of time. I hope I'm around for the rest of time and I'll try to continue them for the rest of time. Hopefully there'll be enough. The market, you guys are the market, the market will respond by making it profitable for me to do. You don't continue to sell a program, sell a thing that the market tells you it doesn't value. Even if some people in the market value it, the market has to value it. And that market I take is reflected either in the super chats or in the in the monthly contributions. So one or the other have to rise for me to think that what I'm doing is valued by the marketplace. Okay, Adam, who is a member of the company, and you can also ask a question through the membership site. I know a quantitative financial history PhD from a top university who is using her knowledge to guide her own investing and is doing very well. Yeah, I mean quantitative financial finance and anything in quantitative finance, even just history of quantitative finance, it's going to do fine. It's going to do fine. But believe me, most of these unemployed historians are not doing fine investing. Jack asked, have you read Nathaniel Brandon's book? Nathaniel Brandon's book just did thoughts. Which one? I mean Nathaniel Brandon wrote lots of books. The one about his biography, his autobiography, his books on psychology, I don't know which book you're talking about. So he wrote a lot of books. I've read a lot of them. I hated his biography. His biography basically showed that Einren was the problem. He was the problem. And I think Nathaniel Brandon has an unbelievably destructive, was an unbelievably destructive force on the objectives movement. He set about a massively destructive trends within objectivism. Psychology of self-esteem is an excellent book. It's got, it's really, really good. Einren edited that book. It was written before they split. I think a lot of Nathaniel Brandon's psychology book is good. Not all of it is great, but certainly the psychology of self-esteem is excellent. Probably his best book. And I would recommend it to a large extent because I think this is in a period where Einren still had a lot of input into his thinking. I think he later regretted a lot of what he wrote in that book. Bree says, I sent you a link for Dr. Wolff's explaining inflation. Any chance of watching that tomorrow, laughing at commies is always fun. Maybe I'll take a look. Thank you, Bree. I'll look for it. All right. Vladimir sends some money for the morning show. Really appreciate that. All right, everybody, we didn't quite make our goal for today. But as I said, I understand given what we're doing tomorrow, $10,000 is not going to be easy. I'm going to need a lot of your help. And I'm going to unabashedly ask for it tomorrow, as I usually do, but maybe a little bit more tomorrow. I am going to try to ask less during shows for money next year. I know that a lot of the people particularly who listen to podcasts are not live, find it distracting and don't particularly like it. And I'd like to increase my audience for the podcast and on YouTube. So I'll probably tone down. They're asking for money next year, or they'll still ask a little bit. And I'll expect us to reach our goals. And I'll remind you of that. Kenny, thank you, really appreciate it. By the way, if everybody watching right now just put a buck in, we'd reach our target quite easily. So particularly if people do it five euros, then we do it like Kenny just did, then we definitely do it. Thank you, Anthony. Thank you, David. Really, really appreciate it. So yes, members show tonight.  Well, in the chat, you can become a member pretty easily by clicking on join button below and becoming a member and joining us tonight. And of course, tomorrow, 2 p.m. east coast time, 2 p.m. east coast time, we will have you in review and looking forward to next year. And please come armed with questions, but also with points of view, I'm curious what your favorite movies of the year were. I don't really have that many. What were their favorite TV shows this last year? I didn't, I realized this last few days that I haven't watched that many movies this year and all the movies that are listed as people's favorite movies I haven't even seen yet. So I've made a list now of movies to watch early next year, but they're all from this year. TV shows, I've watched more so we can talk about those. What are your favorite books from the year, fiction, nonfiction? I also realized I didn't read much fiction this year, which is not good. I need to start reading fiction again. What else? Yeah, anything else that you find interesting to talk about in kind of a year end show? All right. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Zomi. Thank you, Jeffrey. Thank you, Enric. And yeah, you guys are chipping away nicely at towards the goal. And I really, really appreciate that. All right, I will see you all tonight. I'm going off to work out a little bit and getting ready for new years. One of the conditions, you know, for, you know, the reason I'm doing, no, not conditions, the reason I'm doing the show tomorrow to Eastern time is because we're going out for a nice dinner tomorrow night at a nice restaurant to celebrate New Year's Eve. You know, I don't know how late we can stay up, but we will have a nice meal at one of our favorite restaurants. Hopefully you guys have plans to celebrate New Year's Eve. I don't know. The show will probably be a three hour show tomorrow. So plan on two Eastern time to five Eastern time. Two Eastern time to five Eastern time. Yes. All right, everybody, I will see you all tonight. Some of you tonight. Hopefully all of you tomorrow. Oh, by the way, those of you who are podcasting or watching this not live, drop by for a live show. Just drop by tomorrow. Say hello, maybe leave a couple of bucks, ask a question. But let's also get the viewership numbers like through the roof, live views through the roof. So that'll help the algorithm and everything for the show generally. But also it'll just be fun. If a record number of people are listening live, it's not as much as I love the people listen live every day. It's not just the same people are listening live every day, but also some of the people who listen after the fact or on podcasts or watching YouTube late just pop over and say hello. I think that'll enhance the show generally. All right, everybody, I will see you tonight and tomorrow. Bye, everybody. And thank you. Thank you for


This book from 1964 is the first Keith Laumer I'd ever read, and oh my God, am I sorry that I had never picked up anything by Laumer before. This book is a total riot. Okay, see, there's this badass dude who discovers that Earth has been invaded by aliens that look like giant dog skeletons, but only he can see them. I have to think that Laumer got together with a roomful of 12-year-olds and asked him what they wanted to see in a science fiction book, and he put all their ideas in this one kick-ass book.


So welcome everyone to the Schubert seminar. Today we have another three short talks by grad students this time. And without further ado, we're gonna start with Hugh Denin from the Ohio State University telling us about differential identities for Schubert polynomials via pipe dreams. Please take it away Hugh. All right, well, thank you everybody for attending today and thank you to the organizers for inviting me to speak. I'm gonna be talking about some common torques of pipe dreams and in particular how you can use pipe dreams to get some differential identities that we have for Schubert polynomials. So our story begins not with derivatives but rather with it's a tale of two operators. So I have these knobla and delta and these are gonna be linear operators acting on this complex vector space with basis index by permutations of size N. So permutations in SN. So how are they defined? Well, a knobla of a permutation is gonna be the sum over week order covers going downward. So I'm summing overall SKW covered by W. And then how many copies of SKW am I getting? Well, I'm getting K of them. So delta is gonna be a similar story except instead of going downward in week order, I'm summing over all covers in Bruchot order going upward. So I'm summing over all permutations TABW covering W. So TAB is the simple transposition swapping A and B. And then it's a little more complicated what I get. So I get one plus two times the size of this set which I'm calling CWAB, many copies of TABW where CWAB is the set of all C greater than B such that W inverse C is between W inverse A and W inverse B. So this might seem a little mysterious at the moment, but the reason we're defining things like this is because well, Krishan Gates and Ibo Gao showed that if you take knobla and delta together, they form the lowering and raising operators of an SL2 action on this vector space. So the weight spaces of this representation are gonna be the permutations of a fixed length. And the reason that they were thinking about this is because once you have an SL2 action on a post set like this, you automatically get that your post set satisfies the strongly Schwerner property, which is a regularity condition which tells you something about how big anti-chains in your post set can be. So knobla was first introduced by Stanley and conjectured to give an SL2 representation. So they explicitly constructed the corresponding operator delta, which is why it has this weird form or maybe a slightly unusual form. So I'm gonna switch gears now and head over to talking about Schubert polynomials. So to do so, I need to introduce our fundamental combinatorial object, which are gonna be pipe dreams. Or maybe I should say reintroduce since Tianyi talked about these two weeks ago in his talk. But as a reminder, so a pipe dream for a permutation w is gonna be a tiling of this staircase. So I have this staircase with these elbow tiles along the diagonal or the anti-diagonal. And then I can fill in each of these gray tiles with either a cross or a bump. So I want to have the network of pipes connect the top indices to the corresponding indices on the left. And I also want that no two of the pipes are crossing more than once. So that's gonna be this reduced adjective I have in front of pipe dream. But in this talk, all pipe dreams are gonna be reduced. So as an example, I can take the permutation. Oh. I'm sorry, there is a question by Alan. How unique is Delta given the nabla and the weight spaces? I think it's gonna be uniquely determined from the theory of like finite dimensional SL2 representations. Okay. So back to the example. So we have our permutation two, one, four, three. And we have three pipe dreams, three reduced pipe dreams for two, one, four, three, which are these first three I have. And you can check that all of the pipes connect the indices on the top to the corresponding indices on the left. This last pipe dream, it does the correct thing with the indices, but unfortunately my pipes three and four are crossing more than once. So they're crossing three times here. So I wanna ban configurations like this. Okay, so with pipe dreams, I can define now not Schubert polynomials, but this notion of padded Schubert polynomial as generating functions over pipe dreams. So my padded Schubert polynomial is gonna be in variables X's and Z's. And I get a monomial in the X's and Z's for each pipe dream where the weight is determined as follows. So I get an XI for every cross appearing in my pipe dream and the I corresponds to the row index of the cross. So every cross is gonna correspond an XI where I is its row index. And I have a similar story for the ZIs. So for every bump in my pipe dream, I'm getting a ZI where I is the row index of that bump. So you can think of these as sort of a homogenization of your usual Schubert polynomials, which is a little funny since Schubert polynomials are already homogenous, but I'm homogenizing with respect to each subscript separately. So if you count the number of XIs and the number of ZIs appearing, it should remain constant among all monomials appearing here. Right, so without the ZIs, I just have the usual definition for Schubert polynomials. So you can get that by setting all of the ZI variables equal to one. So I think it's worth going through an example. So here's our permutation from before with its three reduced pipe dreams. So to get its padded Schubert polynomial, I'm gonna take each pipe dream appearing here and then replace every cross with a corresponding X variable with the subscript corresponding to the row it's in. And I'm gonna replace every bump with a ZI where the I corresponds to the row the bump is in. And then I take a product of all of the weights and that gives me the weight of the pipe dream. So in this case, I have three monomials corresponding to each of the three reduced pipe dreams for two, one, four, three. Okay, so why am I working with padded Schubert polynomials and not Schubert polynomials? Well, it allows me to define these dual operators. So I have this knobla tilde, which I'm defining to be a sum over partial X derivatives. So I'm something over all of the partial XIs. But then I'm reweighting by a ZI. So in other words, you can think of this as decreasing the XI weight of a polynomial and then re-adding the corresponding Z weight. Right, so that's my knobla and my delta is gonna be, well, the opposite. So instead of taking partial Xs, I'm gonna take partial Zs and then I'm gonna scale back up by the corresponding XI. And it turns out that if you do this, a very curious thing happens. So Hammacher-Petchen-Expire and Weigen showed that if you take a permutation W and apply this knobla to the padded Schubert polynomial for W, you get a sum over weak order covers going downwards and you get K copies of the Schubert polynomial or the padded Schubert polynomial corresponding to SKW. So this is precisely the formula for knobla that we had in the abstract setting where we defined it just as an operator on a vector space with basis indexed by permutations. So you can think of this as a realization of that knobla from earlier. And so here we reap the benefits of working with padded Schubert polynomials because if you take these two operators together, they also satisfy the lead bracket relation that we want for an SL2 representation. So once you know that knobla has this form on Schubert polynomials, you get that delta acts the same way as our formal delta did earlier for free. So in particular, the proofs of these identities were purely algebraic, despite the formulas being purely combinatorial in nature. So I just have some non-negative integers appearing. So this begs the question, where is the combinatorial proof? So that'll be the goal of the talk today is to walk us through some examples of how this bijective proof is gonna work for each of these identities. So I guess I'll check if there are any more questions. What good? Okay, well, so to describe these bijections, I need to talk about some moves you can perform on pipe dreams. So our fundamental move is gonna be the crossover where I can swap a pipe dream like this for a pipe dream like this. And well, it's a little unclear what's going on, but if you notice, I have a cross here, which I am moving upward to this position up here. So let me highlight the pipes that are going through these crosses. And you can see that what's really going on is I'm exchanging a cross with a bump, but the pipes that are passing through these tiles are the same. So essentially, I'm just moving the crossing point of these two pipes upward. So this, the result of this is that the underlying permutation of the pipe dream remains constant, then I can move the crosses around like this. So as a consequence, I get ladder moves, which is a situation where I have a rectangle of pluses with a single plus in the bottom left. And then what I can do is I can take that plus and move it up to the top right. And you can see that this is just a special case of a crossover. And then more generally, if I have a column of pluses on the left with a row of bumps at the top and a bump in the bottom right, then I can move the bottom left cross up to the top right and shift over all of the intermediate crosses. And you can think of this as applying or a successively replying ladder move starting with the first cross here, moving it up to the top right and then proceeding in sequence. I should check if you can see my cursor. I'm not sure if that's coming up on the feed. It does, like we can see. It does. Okay, that's good. This might be very confusing without it. Okay, so let's start with the nobla bijection. So how are we gonna do this? Well, so whenever I take derivatives, I wanna think of the combinatorially as marking a particular atom giving component of my objects. So in this case, I'm taking a partial derivatives in the XIs. So I wanna think of the left-hand side as being a generating function over cross marked pipe dreams since these are the crosses that are giving me the X weights. Right, but since I'm also multiplying by a corresponding Z weight whenever I reduce the X weight, I wanna think of these cross marked pipe dreams as contributing the same weight as the normal pipe dream except the marked cross gives a modified weight of a Zi rather than an Xi. So in other words, whenever I have a cross marked pipe dream where P is a pipe dream and IJ is a cross in the pipe dream, I wanna think of the cross as giving a Z weight instead of an X weight. And then the left-hand side becomes essentially a generating function over these cross marked pipe dreams. Okay, so now if we expand out the identity a little bit, you can see that what I wanna do is I wanna start with a pipe dream Q contributing to the right-hand side of my equation. So Q is gonna come from some SKW, which is covered by W. And then I wanna produce K cross marked pipe dreams. So I'm gonna label them P1 through PK for W that contribute the same modified weight to the left-hand side. All right, so how is that gonna work? Well, I think the best way to see this is through an example. So we're gonna take the following permutation. So W is this big long permutation in S12 and we're gonna pick K equals five. So this is our starting pipe dream. So this is our pipe dream Q corresponding to SKW which lives below W in week order. And I'm gonna start by looking at columns K and K plus one. So when I do this, I'm gonna have some block of crosses up top, so rows with two crosses in them. And then eventually I hit a row that does not have two crosses in them. So I'll keep going down and then eventually I should also hit a row that has two bumps in them. So you can guarantee this is gonna happen because my pipe dream is reduced and I know that pipes K and K plus one do not cross since SKW is beneath W in week order. Okay, so my next step is to perform a generalized ladder move in this inner rectangle. So I'm shifting over these two crosses. And then the result of this is that pipes K and K plus one now bump away in this top left corner. So now I can add a cross here which has the effect of crossing five and six. And this gives me a pipe dream for W. So this is gonna be my P one. And to finish, I wanna mark this bottom left cross to go along with this pipe dream. And so you can check that the result of this is that I have shifted over the cross that was here. It's now over here. And the cross that was here is now over here. And then I had two bumps originally but now I have a bump and the marked cross. And so by checking all of this you can see that the weight of this pipe dream remains unchanged. So I had this additional cross here but because it's marked, it's contributing the weight of a bump. Okay, so this is our first cross mark pipe dream. But now we gotta find four more since K is equal to five here. So I have to find five in total. So I'm gonna describe a process that moves this cross, the marked cross over to the left one column at a time producing a new cross mark pipe dream at each stage. So there are two cases for what can happen. The first is if I have a cross directly to the marked cross, directly to the left of the marked cross, in which case I can just slide the mark over one tile to the left. And so this gives us a second cross mark pipe dream. And since I'm just sliding over the mark in a row, this is gonna change the weighting of the pipe dream. The second situation occurs when I have a bump to the left of the marked cross. So in this situation, I can find a rectangle where my bottom row is two bumps. And I can guarantee this because my pipe dream is reduced. And then I can perform a generalized ladder move to slide both of these crosses downward. So the mark starts in the top right and then ends up in the bottom left. And you can check that before and after this move, the weighting of my pipe dream is the same. Since essentially I'm moving a bump from the top right to the bottom left. Yeah, so these are the two cases for what can happen. So to finish off, we're in a case one. So I'm gonna slide the mark over to the left. This gives us our four cross mark pipe dream. This is your three minute warning. Sorry to interrupt you, but your three minute warning. Yeah, no problem. And then finally, I have a case two. So I'm gonna do a generalized ladder move, which moves the cross down into the first column. So these are our five cross marked pipe dreams. So I'm gonna quickly try to run through the delta bijection. And it's very similar in its idea. So I wanna think of the left-hand side as counting not cross marked pipe dreams, but bump marked pipe dreams, where the bump contributes a weight of X rather than a weight of Z. So what do I wanna do here? So starting with a pipe dream on the right-hand side, I wanna produce this quantity, many bump mark pipe dreams for W on the left-hand side, which I will label as P naught. And then for every C in my set, I'm gonna have a P sub C and a P prime sub C. Right, so I'm starting with a pipe dream Q for a permutation TABW that covers W. Okay, so how's this gonna work? Well, we're gonna start with our pipe dream Q and TABW. So here W is this permutation, A is five and B is eight. And our first step is to look at pipes A and B. And since I know TABW is above W, these pipes must cross at some cross in the pipe dream. So our first step is to just uncross these pipes and this will give us our P naught. So to get the marked bump, I just wanna mark the new bump that appears in the pipe dream. And then effectively I've just turned a cross into a marked bump. So here I have a pipe dream with the same weighting. So this is our first bump mark pipe dream. And then how should we interpret this set? So, right, so this is gonna be the set of all C greater than B, so that W inverse of C is between W inverse A and W inverse B. Well, this corresponds to all of these yellow pipes that begin to the right of our pipe B and that end up in between pipes A and B on the left-hand side. So I'm gonna just do the example for C equals 11. So what are we gonna do? I'm gonna describe a process that moves the bump around. You have like a one minute left before we have to put on the next speaker. So just to let you know. Yeah, so maybe I should wrap things up. Essentially, the process is gonna move the bump around until it eventually lands up on the marked pipe C. So I'm gonna eventually hit this pipe dream, which is gonna be our first pipe dream corresponding to this choice of C. And then I can perform one final crossover to get our second one. And I think I am out of time now. So I think this is a good place to wrap up. Thanks. Thank you very much.


The triceratops is one of the most recognizable herbivores to ever have existed. It is best known for its trio of facial horns. These adornments are not just for display purposes. The brow horns in particular can inflict considerable damage to any dinosaur that dares to provoke it.


Sam here with late in sports cards doing 21-22 Panini prism first off the line and prism hobby mixer number 18 Random teams number 27. Sorry random teams here is a That's not it. That's it. Look at the random results again As always you can find these on the website or in the Lincoln chat. Let's do it start with hobby first I worked out this morning for the first time in like a month I'm not really in shape to begin with and now I'm really not in shape So it's like brutal dude a little bit of warping on these. They are all just base here on Johnson rookie Jaden Springer Devon Vaselle silver Chris Weber on the hyper for the Kings here in Fox base there. I'm gonna hand these over to you now It's like a couple warped cards the first one, but they're all base, which is good Carter's a bone Thailand rookie Carl Malone silver Eric Gordon Jalen Brunson on the hyper maps fireworks Bradley Beal And Flynn and bead and Kevin Durant. Oh, we got an orange coming up for 49, baby. Christopher. It's a rookie Tim Duncan Josh Christopher wings easy We've got Not a rookie it is high Reese maxi on the second year 47 out of 49 there you go 76ers grads on that one It's got Philly Jason H nice one there. We got Brandon Clark on the sensational signatures for the Grizzlies And basin back there Charles Bassie rookie Scotty Lewis for rookie Red Kessler Edwards, there you go net that is 22 out of 2.99 nice one there rookie color fireworks and bead and base Jason Preston Alvin Schengoon silver Dennis Schroeder shack on the fearless silver Yanis and base Josh Richardson Aaron Wiggins Luca Garza silver Jay Crowder prismatic is Devon Booker, and we've got Ben Wallace There you go pistons. That's so sick. Who's got the Troy? Big Ben Wallace Can't see uh Bradley H. There you go Bradley. He's like one known as like the strongest guy in NBA. Oh, yeah So you're not a baseball fan, right? No football and basketball. I have I have a couple of buddies. They're big basketball fans. So they educate me Perfect from a Anthony red wave clean capela swiss bank, uh base there, but baseball.  That's awesome bulls bulls bulls bulls. Where are you? Bulls show yourselves Thomas C. Congrats Thomas.  Oh such a good parallel so clean RJ hanted. There's a Mowgli base rookie Trey man Uh brandon boson jr. Got silver yannis valentunis Got marie stottemire One out of 75. That's so nasty on the 75th anniversary nice stat there phoenix and base Two packs to go out of hobby and then we'll do full sneak bay Got pete marovitch. That's not gonna be that's just gonna be random Uh terms davis red wave got blue scotty lewis nice 21 out of 199. That's three rookie colors in one box Nice Take that booker base Co sun says bulls or bow Cory kispert rookie quitting grimes Uh andrew wiggins gonna be your pulsar one per box Uh bring forbs blue ice. That's a spurs hard 50 out of 125 So you can see spurs down there and it's the signed by spurs or traded the spurs uh yannis and base Born and raised in the phx nice You're seeing rookie colors Or numbers Rookie colored. Yeah, okay. What do you mean? Like are you saying? Well, no, like I was curious if there was like certain colors like for We say color No, just like call like any kind of color. Oh, got you. Okay. I thought there was like a certain color for rookie them like Oh, no, no, no Because it like you're not here. You're guaranteed color and everything we're not guaranteed like colored rookies necessarily So the more colored rookies you pull in one box like the better you're off or off Right. I'll see some photo guys See some nice shimmers come out of this silver de rosen tony kukoch on the um hyper Look at garza rookie. Thanks for the sub whoever that was. I didn't catch your name. I apologize. What's up six? We got a gold shimmer guys gold shimmer. Let's go Kevin love It depends on who it is There's a lot of guys that went mad in this all right gold shimmer just gonna flip it I'll freak a minu for the spurs aka something like this Nice one there spurs not too bad Uh six out of ten For lower tier team always nice to hit one there you go robber p gras on that one buddy Uh pretty solid honestly jaylon brown. We've got luke garza rookie auto that's going to the um pistons There you go. Are you talking about chronicles james? Hey, let me miss kata and ebb and mobley On the base rookie there was a lot of top loading Oh, there was a ton of top loading don was have don was Not happy over there. I got through it, but there's a lot red wave neek. There you go hawks orange rashaun holmes that is five out of 49 two oranges in two boxes is nice Uh crisp ball trade murphy alpharica minu's Mag worthy for you They'd say I wasn't happy top load I don't really get that silver luke. Ah, there you go. Mabs the same. They're young Coiliner treyman brain and boss and jr. Corey kiss for three rookies on the back there Just for that one break You got it from me Uh silver david johnson rookie for the raptors. There you go. Uh lamella.  I don't hate top loading. I hate being behind Yeah, no, no don't just wasn't happy don wasn't happy on the last break because it was a lot of time It was chronicles basketball, which is a ton of top loading Other than that, I'm assuming you've been relatively happy to be here. Oh, yeah, I'm good Um, daniel gafford on the uh pulsar one per box mark is smart hyper cell ticks I'll see a good shimmer here when we get when we get the football six then i'll Get a little more enthused. Oh, yeah That'll be over the moon Uh silver robin lopez. We've got blue killian haze 84 out of 199 Jason tatum, uh charles bassie rookie this base over here Actually, I'm surprised I haven't been doing it ever back. Yeah, I know well this this hasn't been warped Which is like the first three cards have been normal Oh, yeah six is always here six is a troublemaker resident troublemaker haminson victor Red wave don't even chenzo for the bucks erin wiggins on the hyper rookie. There you go thunder Jaylin green base rookie. There you go rockets. Oh, we do too six.  No, he's uh hitzberg He's hitzberg. He's stealers yankees hurricanes. I don't know what we passed. Well, we were talking about Jaylin Hertz one night I thought six was Jaylin's heart and silver red doing bacon for the nicks that is 42 out of uh, two 99 here in fox Who's yours? Do you have a best? Well, team six or no Where's the other shimmer here? Come on. This has gotta be it, right? josh christopher blue shimmer for the rockets There you go h-town Minsu k Nice hit on that one Nine out of 30 jersey number two a heck. Yeah, dude. You're probably mad at that one. Yeah uh Rudy gay on the red that is um 159 out of 299 college b-ball scottie lewis and erin wiggins that's the air card there Yeah, it's second year anthony edwards and they all have the rookie printed on a signature lamella That's funny. Uh, silvery amperity simons kessler edwards on the um Uh, hi are on the hyper And well, it's jaylin chan. God. Did you like him in college then six? My my dad went to yukon. So my parents are huge yukon fans. They hated ai at georgetown Hated ai at georgetown because he was so good rishad holmes. That is red wave Uh, blue ice is dante demon chenzo 86 out of 125 uh, iota sumu base And press then and stottemire that are new for the break guys going to do a quick recap here Just the autos on our mag cards. We've got scottie lewis hornets luka guards epistons ben wallis pistons brandon clark rizley's and josh christopher for the rockets That'll do it for the break guys. Thanks again next up 10 bucks tuesday basketball


Going on everyone Sam here with land sports cars. I'm a 23 at tops inception baseball hobby 16 box full case break number 35 Random vision style there's a look again at your random results as always you can find these all on the website under the results tab as well as link that's in a chat so Good luck Hello jumbo Lou X with a spot in Flux appreciate your buddy again NT 16 to go. It's breaking next getting sold out everyone good squad still on the board for sure Goodwin champs at seven and ten to go And then prism at fourteen a piece so Pretty close to At least halfway on most stuff over halfway on both the prisms which is great Thank you all on that All depending on how that paper yeah, right through how that comes out when you take it out. That's that makes that's the big One for sure Came out of here, please Gabby Mareno green rookie orange Strasburg to 50 And Zack nutty kids do all right so I'm and lane clear so 99 rookie out over the AL West AL West Nice one there. Hello toke. It's good Milan. It was good Christmas New Year's is very good pretty Freeman to 99 for the Dodgers Gunner Henderson Asturi at Ruiz one of ten for the brew crew NL central nice That's on that low number auto Very cool Can 16 to go NT baseball everybody 16 to go 16 to go Yeah Torkelson Dylan Cease to 249 AL central Home sick today. Where you on are you traveling toke? All right, you're home home sick.  No, you haven't been feeling great, right?  Yeah, it's fair I'm not trying to get someone else sick. That's that makes sense Joey Weimer rookie to 75 Reese Hoskins and also at least and a manual about us Lou Bob Simeon Woods Richardson nice Christopher Burrell. I know central to 99 silver signatures. Nice Love the silver ink in this man. It's so clean. Oh nice nice one there congrats on that Chicago Beaver purple to 150 pita Lonzo and Spencer steer Velazquez leave on so doh to 150 nice one there for the AL West Way to be angels Trippin Aray morale it's talking about Jumbo maybe 16 to go on NZ baseball. Yes. He did 16 to go on NZ baseball. Why do you say that? He's supposed to be a right. He's just jealous. Probably It's like the most I've ever heard Jumbo talk doesn't just hide judge Fujinami and Alec Mendoza that is at 91 out of 1 at 49 Recall our patch auto for it the DJs He's being offered for glass now and me. Oh gotcha You got Ryan Pepeo though, that's your boy Cavalli Matt Mervis That is nice Corbin Carroll 45 a 50 and a West that's on that Jeremy H. Let's go Jeremy Good stuff, buddy. I just won there and Francisco Alvarez 30 a 50. What a box man. That's kind of insane That's on that and Elise now. No, you don't have to Milan You don't have to do that man. Thank you though 16 to go and see baseball break and that's good when champs coming up soon, too Yeah, we'll probably just get to where we break what fills stone Garrett stewie Ruiz the one at 50 and Taylor, baby and Corey Lee 19 of 25 color match for the or for the onus and for the orange for the For Syracuse? Yeah, for the Astros Carl the hour Coach pink Nolan Gorman in 99 and Cole Riggs Crawford Lee over McGuire out of 125 nice one there for the Pirates I don't think he's good enough to be a Hall of Famer. He'd be like a Ravens Hall of Famer But I think he's a true Hall of Famer. He's good though. Let me hello Dinauda Eagle legend. Hello Dinauda. Oh, yeah. He was there for a half year You might have won that I don't think he won the Super Bowl with you guys. He might have Gonzalez to 249. You're so then yes Congrats on that one there Guardians a little central. Hall of yeah Hall of very good agreed on that Yeah, so just also all it's all Famer for sure. Oh Redemption Regman Robles Patrick Bailey you Lonzo Jordan Diaz the 249 L West and then Redemption Inception dual autograph relic book card of Torkelson and J Rod Wow, man. AL Central, Jeremy H and AL West Robert H. We'll do a random after that. Good luck, everybody. Torkelson and J-Rod. Inception, dual autograph relic book card. AL West, AL Central. Congrats on that. Like right away. Yeah, I would. You're in the hall of meth. OK, Carl. Got him. Got him. James coming out swinging today. Just got Carl real well. Batten 100. Zekeville-Duran, red to 75, John-Carlo Stanton, Masataka Yoshida. I guess it'd be 1,000. Another redemption, yes. Jordan Walker, base rookie and emerging star, autograph orange parallel. Going to the NL Central. And right behind it is a Gunner Henderson, the 125 RPA. Those two boxes, one had a Carolyn Alvarez, this one had a Walker and a Gunner. Insane case of inception so far. Insane case of inception. Walker should be fine. I would do the Gunner, though. Yeah, for your Gunner. Yeah. Chumbongers, Donny's batting 100. 2,150 is Alvarez to ring. Adlerook and Lubebop to 75, AL Central. AL Central. That's the throw in what he can and see what sticks. Nolan Jones, Coloss, James Naughton, Francisco Alvarez, and Vinnie Pascantino to 75, AL Central. You can tell that guy braced in the lead. You already laughed me about the talent. Yeah, he knew. He looked scared when he came in here, too. He looked frightened to make sure he was OK. Tray Turner, Otani to 25, and Justin Steele. Eloy and Bo Nailor, AL Central. Nice one there to 99. 2A, quick random. Booklet, Torque and Jarod, right? I think so. Excuse me. All right, everybody doing the random for the Inception dual autograph book card of Torquelson and Jarod. That's AL Central with Torque, AL West with Jarod. Roll the dice. Whatever division's on top. After seven times, we'll get the card. So good luck. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Going to the AL West. Grats on that. AL West. AL West. I thought you said West. That's West, Donnie. And you're firing. Ah, not again. Oh, got Alec Munoa, Bo Nailor, Vinny Pasquantino, Francisco Alvarez, Jordan Walker, Jordan Diaz, Oscar Gonzalez, Nicoledolo, Dylan Cease, Leo Verbaguero, Levon Soto. That is going to be a Shea Langlears, Lou Bob, Cori Lee, Esturi Ruiz, Christopher Morrell, Gunnar Henderson, RPA to 125, Corbin Carroll, autograph to 50, and Spencer Torkelson, and Jarod Doola-Rellick-Arbok on the redemption. We'll do a good break, everybody. Thanks again for the fill. Up next, NT Baseball.


So, I am very excited to be here today, thanks for flying me in, and very excited to be talking about this project because this project I started when I was here at the end of the week started, when I was here at the NIH, and are working to write up right now, so this is a really good time to be presenting to everyone, and I'm very excited to hear thoughts and feedback that you have about it. So basically the crux of this project is that I'm interested in the difference between not knowing about something and not being all that interested in it, and the ways that that could be clinically useful to us to think about, and ways that we might measure it, and ways that we might develop interventions that are tailored to these different states that people may be in. And basically this interest started when I was at Georgetown where I was a part-time counselor, part-time postdoc, and working on a study, analyzing data from a study that was a decision aid, where the first paper came out and everything was pretty clean and nice about it. It was an effective decision aid, particularly for people who hadn't made decisions about treatment and management following BRCA 1 and 2 testing. It helped them reach a decision, it lowered their decisional conflict to increase their satisfaction. So that was great, and I was actually working to design the next decision aid that we would draw from this data, but analyzing some more data from this previous study and looking at the distress outcomes, and what we found was that the decision aid actually made people a little stressed, which at first glance doesn't sound like a very good thing about a decision aid, and what you can see, so BSI, just general distress, really there's no difference between the people who got the decision aid and didn't. But when you looked at genetic testing specific distress, which is what we were calling it at the time, I'll get back to that in a minute, in cancer specific distress, which is just how much they're worried about cancer, at the one month time period, the people who had the decision aid were a little bit more stressed than their counterparts who didn't get it, and this resolved by 12 months, so there was no issue. So we spent a lot of time thinking about, well, what is this? And I came to suspect that maybe it really wasn't distress after all. Maybe the fact that we were asking them to spend time thinking about cancer, thinking about their genetic test result, raised their thinking about it a little bit, and in fact a lot of the questions on these measures were like, how often do you think about it? How often do you think about cancer? How often, you know, these sorts of things. And maybe it wasn't so much distress, as much as just active processing of what was going on, and maybe in this case that's part of what made the decision aid useful. So this is conjecture, but maybe. So when I had the opportunity to come to the NIH, I was really interested in following up on this, and also very excited to be able to do it in a genome sequencing setting and worked with ClinSeq, so it follows on nicely from Katie's talk. So, oh yeah, there's the distress. So what I called this concept that I was looking at was engagement, and it's really sort of a cognitive engagement, and the way that I think about it is really how much you think and care about a particular thing. And I almost think about it sort of like real estate, like cognitive real estate, that there are a certain number of waking hours in a day, and you spend a certain amount of time in those waking hours thinking about specific things, and that the amount of time you spend thinking about those specific things may predict how you choose to act related to those things. So it's distinct from knowledge, because you can know about something, but not spend a lot of time thinking about it. There's a lot in the literature about the concept of arousal, which I think is sort of a related, which is the idea that you come to be interested in something or something comes to the forefront. But what I don't like about arousal is that it, to me, implies sort of a specific event that happens rather than a continued process. And I also think you see a lot in the literature things that are activities stemming from engagement, and this is really popular in the marketing literature and in IT, which is how much do people interact with a website, how many clicks do they have, how long do they spend on it, and a lot of times that gets called engagement. But what I would argue is that that's actually an outcome of engagement, that you're doing that because of a cognitive process that's coming in. So you could measure those things, but they're really proxies sort of for the cognitive process. So there's a model that I think really breaks this down nicely, and it's the precaution-adoption process model, which is a stage model, which means that it describes how people pass through various stages along the course, too, in this case, a decision. And there's the unaware stage where you just have never even heard of something, so obviously you're not to the point of thinking about it. Unengaged, which is just not, you know about it, but you're not spending a lot of time thinking about it, to active decision making, which then predicts action or inaction. And I think one of the really important things about this model is it breaks apart people who don't know about things, people who don't care about things, and people who actively decide not to do something. And I think in the clinic we conflate those a lot, and really often maybe not genetic counselors, but clinicians will assume it's lack of knowledge. And if you just talk to the patient longer, eventually they'll get it. So it's really nice model also because this whole decision part in the middle here, you could basically fit any health decision-making model into it and combine this model with other models. So I like that flexibility about it a lot. And I think it's really, well, it's been used, I'll say, also in like home radon testing. Why do people do radon testing or not? Have you heard of radon testing? Do you care about radon testing? Do you think radon testing is a bad idea? And those are three very different reasons for not doing radon testing. I think it fits really well in the genomics environment along lines of many of the themes we've talked about today that people may be getting results for which they don't have much saliency. They may be able to understand that there's a variant, but they just don't have the background or the reason to be interested in it. And that may predict the way that they subsequently respond or not to that result. And that's very different from not understanding and actively deciding not to do something. So what we did was bring this idea into ClinSeq and think about how can we really do some concept exploration of engagement within the ClinSeq population with the studies that we're doing there. And Katie described ClinSeq to you, so I won't go through that. But the first analyses of engagement that we're doing are a part of the ClinSeq baseline survey. Which also is something that was started about the time both Katie and I came to the NIH and a whole group of us said we all want to get measures from the population before people get results. So we can get a sense of what the impact of results may be in a number of different settings, knowing that they're going to get all kinds of results. So let's make a huge survey and then let's have a lot of really tense discussions about what actually gets to stay on the survey and make it bearable for participants. And our definition of bearable was about 45 minutes, which is a pretty long survey. And so this was then offered to all ClinSeq participants who had not yet received results and were more than a month out from enrollment. They were given the option of doing it online or in paper. And Katie and her group did an amazing job of getting the end up to, I don't have that slide yet, but I'll get to that in, 551. So they got a lot of people to fill out the survey for a 45 minute survey is pretty good, but they contacted them multiple times to get this in. So the engagement part of the baseline survey was to look at the constructs of knowledge, engagement, and communication. And specifically at the baseline, they haven't gotten results yet. So we're talking about communication about being in ClinSeq and to see how these things relate. Largely with the goal of exploring the concept of engagement. Looking at some of these relationships predicted in the model, the precaution adoption model between knowledge and communication. And then also looking at some other things that we would expect might be related to engagement as we see it. So as I said, Katie largely did an amazing job getting people to fill out this survey and there were 551 survey responses for analysis. They were pretty comparable to the general ClinSeq population, although slightly more likely to have a high level of education and slightly more likely to be white or not Hispanic or Latino. But these are pretty small differences, less than 10%. Okay, so the question I asked to get an engagement in the baseline was just how often do you think about your participation in ClinSeq? And there's a normal distribution ranging from never, which probably isn't true because they filled out the survey. But anyway, two yearly, all the way down to one person who thinks about ClinSeq daily. And yearly makes sense because that's about the frequency with which the study team contacts participants. So that's sort of a logical answer for them. So then we looked at these constructs from the model and they were related. So knowledge was related to engagement and engagement was related to frequency of communication. So we asked, how often do you talk to your doctor about ClinSeq? How often do you talk to your family about ClinSeq? How often do you talk to your friends about ClinSeq? And those were related as they would be predicted by the model. And then we also, so we looked at whether engagement was related to who they tell and it wasn't really. But just in the process of looking at who they tell, we saw that communication just about being in a genome sequencing study, which you imagine might have some relevance for family members, was fairly high with almost everybody telling their spouse they were enrolled. Three quarters of people told their children it gets smaller as you get down to parents and siblings and there was a statistically significant difference between whether they told their sister versus whether they told their brother with more people telling their sisters that they were in a sequencing study than their brothers. And three quarters of them told their physicians. Other correlates of engagement we looked at and I think some of this is consistent with some of what Katie was saying about how people viewed their results that they got, but just how people would think about a study like this in general is that people who are in better health were more likely to report thinking about ClinSeq more often. People who saw the doctor more often, so perhaps they have more comorbidities, thought about ClinSeq less often. People who are health information seekers thought about ClinSeq more often. People who've had genetic testing in the past thought about ClinSeq more often. People had a graduate degree thought about ClinSeq more often and people who had enrolled more recently in ClinSeq thought about ClinSeq more often. So the longer it had been since enrollment they were less likely to think about it. So to summarize, most people do think about their participation in ClinSeq but to varying degrees as predicted by the model. Engagement is related to knowledge and communication and healthier information seekers with history of graduate degrees and genetic testing are more likely to be engaged. So a couple limitations, one you would imagine people who are more engaged might be more likely to fill out a survey about ClinSeq. In this analysis we just used that single item measure of engagement and it is cross-sectional data so we can't really infer anything about directional relationships beyond the theoretical background. So future directions to address some of those limitations is that we've put together several items, four items scale with four potential other items we might include that could potentially expand the validity of this measure that all try to get at again this cognitive real estate idea of how often people are thinking about it. And some of these others that I've listed below I think fall into the category of proxies of engagement or outcomes of engagement but I'll be interested to see how they would perform. I think that there are a few testable hypotheses that could play out in longitudinal studies and one that we've spent the most time talking about would be looking at ClinSeq as returning carrier results to participants and looking at one month at their engagement to see if that's predictive long-term at six months or 12 months of whether or not they communicated to family members and we're still kind of guessing a little at the time frame on which this might happen but going back to the first study I mentioned from Georgetown that was about the time frame we saw so we have some reason to think that might work. And then where I think we can make an even bigger impact to this is looking at actionable risk associated variants and if engagement predicts uptake of behaviors in response to those sort of risk management behaviors. So if you returned a cancer risk variant to somebody and they were more engaged would they be more likely to tell their physician would they be more likely to get screening would they be more likely to consider other management decisions or prevention if it was available for whatever that variant was. I think that's that's the hypothesis I'd really like to test someday and then the long term wildly speculative hypothesis is that if we could design interventions aimed at the disengaged or you know stage tailored interventions that divide people by not knowing not being interested and actively deciding against and then deliver them accordingly perhaps we could achieve positive health outcomes in a more effective way. So one of these I mentioned already but I had to get a few tangential plugs in here just really quick. I apologize to Barb for using my time for this but the practice guidelines committee is in great need of genetic counselors with research training. This is a great group of people who have really good research training and they're going to be looking for members in the next month or so. So they really need you guys. The research SIG 2 as the research SIG chair right now we're hoping to increase activity invisibility engagement potentially within the research SIGs. So you'll have me know if you're interested. So thanks to my co authors on the project as well as the entire ClinSeq social science team and the ClinSeq participants.