eing ranked on their usual standards. And they say that they won't even contribute information to the rankings unless their diversity and equity successes are included in their ranking. What do you think of that? Would you like colleges to be ranked in part on the quality of the school, the quality of the school, not just the fairness but the quality of the education? That's what's being ranked, not fairness but the quality of the education. And they're saying that the quality of the education is better when you've got more diversity and equity and inclusion. What do you think of that? Do you think you get a better education if there's more diversity? You're all racist. You totally get a better education if there's more diversity. You're all racist, and I mean that literally. Yeah, I'm sorry, I just have to say that to your screen faces.

Now if the only variable that's different, if the only variable that's different is diversity, it's all positive. Do you disagree? Because the diversity does give you more access to more points of view. So if everybody's equally qualified, that's a benefit. Really? You don't think that's a benefit? If everybody's the same qualifications, you don't think diversity gives you more points of view, more access, more windows to look through, more understanding, better bedside manner perhaps because you understand people better? No, it's unambiguously good. All right, well you could argue that point. But here's my point. It's the way they get there is sacrificing merit. Then does everybody think that's good? If you were to de-prioritize merit to get more equity and more diversity, is that still good? Well yeah, there's a crossover point, right? So you're getting something from diversity and I'll argue that to the death. Because simply because I've been in those environments. Whenever I'm in an environment where there's more diversity, I'm absolutely picking up more understanding. There's just no way to argue that. You can't argue that.

But if you give up merit, here's what I think we need to do. I think I would like to know if my doctor got one of those equity degrees or one of those merit degrees. Don't you think we should make a difference? Would you like to know? Oh doctor, I see you have a degree. Did you get one of the equity types or one of the merit types? Now this will never happen of course, but there are so many things that could be solved by truth and labeling, right? If the only thing I'm asking for is truth and labeling, why would that be a problem? Let the free market decide if they think that somebody who went to a sort of equity priority school got more out of the equity and the diversity — because there is a lot to get there — then they gave up on maybe a little bit in the rankings of their academics. Yeah, maybe it's not that big a deal. You know, maybe it's a small tweak to the merit to get a lot more diversity. You can make that argument. But I would certainly like as a consumer to know the difference. I want to know, was equity and diversity a big deal at the school you went to and did that have anything to do with the fact that you made it through or was it merit only?

So today I have a doctor who is a woman and she's brown of some type. I've never asked. All right, so she's a person of color, some kind of a brown, whatever, and she's a woman. I have never once thought that she was there for any reason other than merit. Never even occurred to me. Never once in my mind did I say, ooh, I wonder if she only got through medical school because of her — never once. Never thought. And she's a great doctor. I like her a lot. But what happens in five years if the doctors coming out of equity priority college? I'd kind of want to know. I mean I might not make a different decision. I might make the same decision. But I'd like to know. A little truth and labeling would be nice.

Speaking of Dr. Jordan Peterson, he is creating an alternative to the World Economic Forum. And I guess it would be pro-energy that's cheap so that poor people can have access to the energy and pro-families and monogamy. Now here's my big problem with Dr. Peterson's philosophies of life. He's big on family and monogamy and I absolutely agree with him that that is the best system for a stable world. But only maybe for 25% of people. And that's the problem. In the old days maybe it was better for a higher percentage. I don't think — I really don't think more than 25% of the public is going to make a marriage work. For the rest it's probably a bad idea. And I don't know what to do about that. It could be that his approach is the best, which is if you don't push as hard as possible on the thing you know works, you're in trouble. Yeah, I get that. Boy, that makes sense. And I do agree that if you get the right two people and you put them in the monogamous marriage, it is the best. I think that's just sort of obviously true. You know, you can see it in a lot of ways.

But let me ask you this question. I'm gonna put on my skeptic hat for a moment. Do we all agree that single moms produce children who have the most criminal records? Would you agree that that correlation seems to be really clean? You don't agree? I'm not saying it's causation. I'm saying the correlation. Would it be easier if I just say correlation? Because the causation is what I'm going to question next.

All right, so here's my question. Is it also true of college-educated single moms? In other words, if you look at only the single moms who went to Ivy League colleges and have high incomes, they have high incomes, are their children also more likely to be criminals compared to the average? You think yes? I would make a really, really large bet that they have a low criminal record. I would make a really, really big bet on that. You really think it's going to be the same? So to me that looks like brainwashing. But I'll allow that you could be right since I don't have the data. I will allow that you could be right. On the surface it looks like brainwashing because if you think that in all situations simply having one parent is worse than all situations with two, that's not really rational thinking. But if you believe there's a strong correlation when you look at the whole thing, probably yes. I think it's been studied a lot.

But here's the thing. There is a lot more going on with those single mothers than just the fact that they're single mothers. Whatever it is that made a man not want to be with them — do I need to finish the sentence? Right? Now when I talk about the Ivy League woman who chooses to be a single mother, that's a choice. That's somebody who said, oh I can handle this. I think I will choose to be a single mother. Do you think that's the same as somebody who couldn't get a man to live with her even if she tried? There's no way those are the same. There's no way.

And what about the man who left? If that woman had stayed with the man who left, they would be happy and the child would do well? Because there's got to be something about the man who leaves and doesn't take responsibility that suggests that if he had stayed it would have been pretty bad because he doesn't take responsibility and obviously was not in love with the woman. So I think our thinking about single parenting is completely mixed up with too many other variables. And if the only thing you're seeing is the single part, you're missing the biggest part of the picture, I think. So I think we're completely misled about what's going on there. I think there's a certain type of person who's more likely to be a single mom and that person who's more likely to be a single mom is unlikely to have an Ivy League degree. They're likely to have a bunch of other characteristics in common with other single women. And I think it's those other characteristics that are probably driving things.

Now that said, the best way to raise a kid I'm sure is a mother and a father. I'm not sure the gender thing is so important