Imagine buying a psychology book from a guy who got a BA in economics in 1979 as expert. Well if I ever called myself an expert I don't believe I have. And have I ever recommended any form of persuasion that is not fairly routinely known by science to be persuasive? I don't believe I have. So reporting on something and being an expert are different. The people who call me an expert on persuasion, that's their opinion. That's not mine. I'm just reporting what the experts say works and what my experience says works. That's all I've ever called it. If I ever call myself an expert on persuasion you should criticize me about that. I wouldn't call myself that.

Please interview Tony Heller on herd immunity. I don't think I will. Here's some things that I won't do, so you should stop asking. If you asked me to interview one expert on a topic in which I've done some deep diving and I have some information, I might do it. So for example when I talked about climate change with Michael Shellenberger and also Bjorn Lomborg, that was a topic I've done my own reading on enough that I knew I could ask the right questions. But if I would have some other expert on, an expert on I don't know some other thing, if I don't also know enough to ask the right questions then I would be doing a disservice to you because having one expert blather is worse than having no expert.

So let me give you the order of understanding your world. Your best situation would be two experts who have opposing views who have enough time to talk and maybe there's a strong moderator that can keep them on the right page. That would be the best way to get information. Two experts battling it out within a time limit.

The next best in terms of understanding your world would be no experts. So the second best situation from having two experts on different sides is no experts. That's your second best situation. Your worst situation is one expert because that one expert, just like one attorney, will convince you that they make sense. Any expert can convince you of anything if you're not an expert in that field.

So if I were to bring on one expert I would be giving you disinformation because any time one expert is presented and there's nobody there to ask the right questions, that's misinformation. Now it doesn't mean that it's always misinformation but it does mean you should put the lowest level of credibility on it, which effectively makes it no information at all. And since there's at least a good chance that it's misleading or the expert is wrong, there's a good chance of misleading people with no chance whatsoever of giving people credible information.

So anytime you say can you put this expert on to talk about let's say herd immunity, what do I know about herd immunity? Nothing. Some people say it's 10 to 20 percent. Some people say it's 60 to 70 percent. That's it. So if I have an expert on who says a bunch of stuff, would you be informed? Well you would have new stuff coming into your head but I had no way to know that it's right. So is that a good thing to do? It's a bad thing to do. It's a bad thing to do.

Have I read Michael Shellenberger's new book on climate change? Yes I have. I have read it and it's excellent.