Alex Tarnava

I only agree.

read those i strongly disagree with um i call it learning from the loathsome because i find even the most hateful extreme people on all sides they still observe the same truths as we do but it's in their prescriptions that they deviate and their causations that they deviate

And if we discount what they see in the reality they see, then we can't understand how they came to these conclusions and we can't understand how they're convincing others to come to those conclusions.

And to read those contrasts and think deeply about those contrasts, about the pathway that their thoughts may take to get there, it helps crystallize my own thoughts to understand the truth behind everything.

And so I often like reading.

extreme opposites back to back i like you know and writing down the shared truths they see i call them alchemical inversions so i might read and i'm doing this in my second book called the stone wall on power human nature and the failures of justice where i'll contrast the most vile misogynist against multiple second wave feminists and they really see the same thing and come to opposite conclusions

And that's why I like going on tangents and conversations because you and I could maybe have some conversations on things we agree completely with.

But if we have a curveball conversation where we don't know the waters we're about to tread into, then we learn more about each other and we learn perspective on those issues.

this dude may be onto something here and i just never gave it the time of day a hundred percent and you get these very interesting perspectives from people that you don't expect to that maybe have an expertise somewhere else but then they see something as an outsider that people inside don't see yes and um

it's something that like, I believe in so much that I'm spending tens of thousands of dollars a month on editors for my books.

And we are engaging in like wars, basically debating each other because I've instructed all of them to be adversarial, not just with me, but with each other, because I believe through friction, truth emerges.

So long as it's respectable friction, everyone has to defend their position, right?

But I've hired this team of brilliant editors from multiple backgrounds of political beliefs, expertise.

Some of them are from high-level universities like Harvard and Stanford and Oxford.

Others have left academia.

You know, disenfranchised, even, you know, what you'd say conspiracy theorists or what would they be accused of, but with plausible rationale behind what they think is wrong.

And so I get these people all across these belief spectrums from different expertises.

And it's often someone outside the field that gives an insight into the field they're commenting on.

Now they might not have the deep knowledge that someone inside the field does, but they see something from a different way.

And then it shifts the conversation, the debates we're having.