How do Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen evaluate Trump and Iran, ethics in high-IQ communities, journalism standards, and the behavioral effects of social media?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner range across Trump, Iran, journalism, high-IQ communities, sex differences, gambling, and algorithmic media. Rosner argues that while weakening Iran’s regime may be strategically understandable, military action alone is unlikely to achieve regime change. Jacobsen reflects on ethical failures within parts of high-IQ circles, including coercion, boundary violations, and reputational harm, while stressing that most members are normal and often admirable. Together, they caution against overgeneralization about sex-based cognitive variance, defend professional consent norms in journalism, and examine how gambling apps and personalized social media feeds reshape modern attention, behaviour, and public reasoning at scale today.

Opening Question

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have been yelling for two hours this morning. What have you been yelling about? What is the most egregious part of this hormone issue? And I can hear Lance asking, “What has Trump done right in this debacle?”

Rick Rosner: I have been yelling a lot. I was a guest on the show Roar, which focuses on what people can do to stand up for their principles during difficult times, and whether they can and should. Much of the discussion focused on Trump.

Spending years immersed in this can feel like swimming with sharks for hours each day, and then a study appears showing that bull sharks may form stable social preferences. Researchers observing bull sharks over multiple years have found evidence that they do not associate randomly and may prefer certain companions, supporting the idea that some sharks have preferred associates, though “friends” remains a popularized term rather than a strict scientific one.

I have also seen footage of divers removing hooks and debris from sharks’ mouths; that is plausible and documented, though it is more accurate to say that some sharks appear to tolerate or return for such interactions than to claim a fully understood friendship with a human.

There is also a program called Dancing with Sharks, associated with Shark Week, in which trained divers perform choreographed underwater routines around sharks; it is more accurate to say the divers are trained for controlled performances in the presence of sharks than that the sharks themselves are trained dancers.

Another notable story, less delightful but revealing, comes from the Wall Street Journal: by 2025, service-based tenants such as salons, spas, and fitness studios accounted for more than half of U.S. retail leasing for the first time, meaning those categories leased more retail space than traditional goods-based retailers.

In places such as Studio City, boutiques may still survive when owners can absorb losses, but the broader trend favours service-oriented businesses.

Trump, Iran, and Strategic Limits

Returning to the question, what has Trump done right in this situation? First, the broader context: Iran has roughly 800 miles of southern coastline along the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Gulf of Oman.

Along that entire coastline, they can fire missiles from land and launch attacks into the sea. Eight hundred miles is roughly the length of California. There is a chokepoint at the Strait of Hormuz, but it would be extremely difficult to prevent attacks from Iran along that coastline fully. We do not have the forces in place to do so, and realistically, no one does. Strategically, that is a major challenge.

Tactically, the picture is less clear, but the objectives regarding Iran are understandable. Iran has a repressive government that has used lethal force against its own population during periods of protest. The regime has been in power since 1979, following the Iranian Revolution, so we are looking at over four decades of continuity.

Iran also funds and coordinates non-state armed groups across the Middle East, including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. From that perspective, weakening the regime could be seen as a strategic goal.

There is also the question of Iran’s nuclear program. Iran has accumulated uranium enriched to around 60%, which is below weapons-grade but significantly closer to it than civilian levels. Estimates from international monitoring bodies suggest that Iran possesses enough enriched material that, if further processed, could contribute to a nuclear weapon.

Even if a nuclear device were developed, delivery systems are a separate issue. Iran has regional missile capabilities, but it does not currently possess missiles capable of reliably striking the continental United States, though it can target Israel and regional adversaries.

If conflict were to degrade Iran’s missile stockpiles, that could be a temporary advantage. However, Iran has a large population—around 90 million people—and a diversified industrial base. It retains the capacity to rebuild missiles and drones over time. Its economy is constrained by sanctions but not negligible.

In terms of nuclear material, enriched uranium is dense and relatively compact, making concealment feasible in a large country such as Iran, which is more than twice the size of Texas. Detecting dispersed stockpiles would require detailed intelligence, including human sources.

The broader point is that while the objectives—limiting Iran’s military capabilities and nuclear potential—may be clear, achieving them is far more difficult. The regime has demonstrated durability. It has faced internal protests for decades and survived them.

It also endured the Iran–Iraq War, during which Iraq invaded Iran with large conventional forces, including hundreds of thousands of troops, tanks, and aircraft. Despite severe losses, the regime did not collapse.

Compared to that level of sustained conventional warfare, limited strikes or bombing campaigns are unlikely, on their own, to produce regime change.

Betting markets suggest the regime will likely survive, and many analysts agree. As discussed, locating enriched uranium in a country the size of Iran is extremely difficult.

Will this action set Iran back? It is unclear. The escalation followed pressure from Benjamin Netanyahu in discussions with Donald Trump. During this period, Israel has also conducted strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon. Whether constraining Iran’s resources would significantly weaken Hezbollah remains uncertain.

Some commentators argue confidently that the regime will fall, often framing dissent as disloyalty. A more realistic assessment is that the effort is unlikely to achieve regime change.

Even within pro-administration circles, there has been dissent. Joe Kent, associated with the MAGA movement and a former Green Beret with multiple deployments, publicly questioned the justification for war with Iran and stepped away from his role in counterterrorism leadership. This reflects broader disagreement, even among supporters of a more aggressive foreign policy.

The central issue remains that the objectives—weakening Iran’s regime and limiting its capabilities—are difficult to achieve through military action alone.

Ethics in High-IQ Communities

Jacobsen: I was offered an opportunity within high-IQ communities to do some writing, which led me to reflect on a few experiences. Part of the context was a proposed ethical code. Elitist tendencies exist in parts and may be practically inevitable within some minority communities, which makes an ethical code salient: it can channel those tendencies toward care, restraint, and stewardship—a better option than contempt or exclusion. Difficulties exist in enforcement. Acceptance of such a code will depend largely on the moral character and ethical awareness of the people. Over roughly ten years of interviews with a wide range of individuals, I had relatively few negative encounters, but a few stand out.

One case involved a physics- and philosophy-of-physics-related issue. I had helped one individual edit their paper as a goodwill gesture. Separately, I interviewed another individual who was critical of that person’s theory. These were entirely independent affairs. After publication, the first individual contacted me and spent a prolonged period attempting to intimidate me into retracting the interview without explicitly stating so.

A second case involved two individuals who disliked each other. I was working with both when one issued an ultimatum: work with him or the other person. I interpreted this as coercive and unhealthy behaviour. I chose to disengage from that individual, suggested that any concerns be directed to the other party, and ended the interaction professionally. I wish them well.

A third case involved issues of consent and ethics. An individual provided me, without request, with detailed information about other test-takers, including scores and identifying details, without their consent. This individual was prominent within a Catholic segment of high-IQ communities. A critical interview of the Catholic Church involving a high-scoring member was a significant enough trigger for them to cut contact, for a while. We’re good now. I put that down to the consent of test-takers and select theological fears of Freemasonry.

Another group, led by an American individual online, has proposed (group member) making a list of enemies of their theologies and has a history of harassing critics or dissenters for months, then issuing imprecatory prayers against them. Then others have done the same to them in return or to begin, for a toxic circle. There’s tons of insane behaviour like this.

Another individual out of South Korea has an extensive and thoroughly documented history, for years, of megalomanic behaviour, grandiose claims, pathological lying, and spreading the worst possible calumnies against individuals he himself has wronged deeply for years. The evidence in community behind closed doors and in the public domain is overwhelming and conclusive, several community members refuse to speak out: to protect him, to avoid controversy, to simply not be bothered, or other reasons.

These experiences highlight recurring issues of boundary violations, coercion, and ethical lapses. Clear ethical norms may be warranted because fraudulent, coercive, or reputationally damaging actors can cause outsized harm.

The high-IQ communities are, in my experience, vastly normal and often praiseworthy. I have no reason to think high-IQ individuals are predisposed to unethical behaviour and may even be somewhat predisposed toward slightly better conduct.

This suggests a few general principles for building norms or codes of conduct. First, obtain consent where relevant. Second, ask whether the request respects the other person’s autonomy. Third, verify whether an individual has a pattern of dishonesty rather than a one-off. Where such codes work, they will likely work first in self-selected groups already inclined toward self-enforcement. There should also be community enforcement when fraud or abuse becomes known.

Sex Differences, Variance, and Caution

A broader pattern I have observed concerns claims about exceptionally high scores on high-range tests. The vast majority of individuals claiming to have “the highest IQ” in one of four ways—whether at the national, regional, or global level, or even in human history—are men. In many cases, such claims are either self-asserted or readily accepted by the individual in question. Comparable claims involving women are rare.

Related to this, there may be differences in cognitive profiles. Among high-scoring women, performance across subtests tends to be more balanced. In contrast, among men, there may be greater variability across cognitive domains. This variability may extend beyond cognition into emotional or social traits, though such claims should be treated cautiously given small sample sizes and the limits of available data. Cooijmans has posited the hypothesis of the width of the associative horizon for creativity. I propose something broader regarding cognitive and emotional functioning and subsequent responsibility.

For some ultra-high-IQ individuals, my interviews may be a place to express themselves honestly and, perhaps, escape some self- and others’-imposed isolation. More broadly, I suspect many societies fail less at educating the gifted than at integrating and appreciating them.

Rosner: That may be the case, but the sample size is very small. Generalizing from limited data is risky. You are not making the same claim as Lawrence Summers, but the comparison is relevant. Summers argued that while average intelligence between men and women is similar, there may be greater variance among men, leading to more individuals at both extremes. That argument remains controversial and should be approached carefully.

Jacobsen: The argument is that there may be more people at both the high and low ends among men—that is, greater variance.

Rosner: Lawrence Summers faced significant criticism for raising a similar point.

Jacobsen: I would add two caveats. First, this applies only to IQ as a metric, and IQ should not be treated as a comprehensive proxy for intelligence or the full range of human capabilities. Second, Summers extended the argument toward claims about women’s participation in science; I am not making that claim. Some aspects of variance are discussed in empirical literature, but they are often overstated.

In general, distributions for men and women overlap substantially across most cognitive measures. There are some observed tendencies—for example, men performing better on certain spatial tasks such as mental rotation, and women performing better on measures like verbal fluency—but the overlap between distributions is far greater than the differences.

Rosner: There are also biological and social hypotheses. Some theories suggest differences in brain connectivity patterns, though the evidence is mixed and often overstated in popular discussions. There are also behavioural observations, such as differences in impulse control, but these vary widely across individuals.

Social context matters as well. A highly capable woman working in a demanding field—such as technology—may develop strong analytical and adaptive skills, partly by navigating difficult professional environments. Many of these environments are male-dominated and can include interpersonal challenges.

Jacobsen: I agree that sexism is a significant social barrier in many professional contexts, affecting some women more than others. However, that point can be made without relying on stereotypes about men. Replacing one form of bias with another does not improve the analysis.

Rosner: That is fair. I am not arguing for stereotyping as a framework. However, in practice, communities such as high-IQ societies tend to be overwhelmingly male, with a wide range of personalities and behaviours represented within them.

Jacobsen: Within these communities, there is a wide range, from well-adjusted individuals to the opposite. Entry into high-IQ societies is selective, but the broader communities around them are voluntary and shaped by the signals they project and the people they attract. As you noted, there are more men than women.

What else can be said on this point? We have covered a range of angles.

Journalism, Consent, and Professional Standards

Rosner: You also raised the rules of journalism when dealing with interview subjects.

Jacobsen: From a community standpoint, one basic principle is clear: do not share test-taker information without consent. That is a fundamental ethical boundary.

Rosner: You were also discussing standards for journalists in interviews. Anyone who regularly deals with journalists—myself included—has encountered both professionalism and lapses. You mentioned a negative experience with a presenter, and I can think of similar cases. For example, Jimmy Kimmel has spoken about setting ground rules for interviews that were ignored.

Jacobsen: That is a significant issue. In my experience, however, most journalists—like most professionals—do their work responsibly. There are bad actors, but they are exceptions rather than the rule. When ethical breaches occur, there are often consequences within professional communities.

Rosner: I argue that journalism today is more fragmented. It resembles a “wild west” environment in some areas. Many individuals without formal training present themselves as journalists or investigators and operate without established standards.

For example, figures such as Nick Shirley have built large audiences by conducting informal investigations. In some cases, these methods involve actions—such as attempting to film inside private facilities—that would not meet conventional journalistic standards. Interpretations of such encounters are then presented as evidence of wrongdoing, often for a politically aligned audience.

Many individuals are operating in this space—some without training or adherence to professional norms—who nonetheless reach large audiences.

Jacobsen: At the same time, formal structures are attempting to maintain standards. Professional associations review applicants, and in some cases, offer provisional or associate memberships when credentials are uncertain. Maintaining integrity is an ongoing effort within the field.

Rosner: That may be true, but visibility and influence do not necessarily align with professional recognition. Some of these independent figures reach far larger audiences than members of traditional organizations, particularly on platforms such as X. All right, should we move on? I have a couple of topics—at least one.

Jacobsen: Yes, let us move on. What are your topics?

Phase Changes, Gambling, and Social Media

Rosner: I previously mentioned phase changes in human behaviour and lifestyle.

Jacobsen: Yes, let us revisit that.

Rosner: I want to discuss a few developments that are not full phase changes but are still radical shifts in how people live. One is the rise of easy, accessible gambling in the United States and likely globally.

It used to be a low-stakes, low-participation activity for most people. My father would occasionally bet small amounts with friends on outcomes such as college football games. The stakes were minimal—often a dollar or two—and the exchange was more symbolic than financial.

He also played poker regularly in a social setting. These gatherings were informal, involving conversation and modest sums of money. Even across an entire evening, the total amount exchanged was limited. Gambling was not a dominant feature of everyday life.

Now, participation has expanded significantly. Online platforms and mobile applications allow people to gamble instantly and continuously. This accessibility has created a situation in which many individuals, particularly younger users, are exposed to frequent and potentially harmful gambling behaviour.

I gamble occasionally on political outcomes. I once increased a small stake to several hundred dollars, but after the 2024 U.S. election, I lost most of it. That experience illustrates both the volatility and the ease of participation.

The broader issue is that the accessibility of gambling introduces another layer of behavioural risk. It serves as a constant pressure, encouraging repeated engagement. This represents a notable shift in American life, and not necessarily a positive one.

Social Media, Attention, and Curated Pandering

Jacobsen: Do you think social media is changing how Americans think, feel, or perceive events? Which dimension is most affected?

Rosner: Americans once received much of their information through direct interaction. People discussed events face-to-face—asking what others had seen, heard, or read. They also relied on shared media sources.

In the mid-20th century, many Americans watched a nightly national news broadcast, typically around 22 minutes without advertisements. Households often subscribed to newspapers and magazines such as Time or Newsweek, and later People. Information consumption was slower, more centralized, and often shared within households or communities.

Today, most information arrives through smartphones. Face-to-face exchange has declined. People rarely gather to discuss news in person; instead, they encounter content individually and share it digitally. Even within households, information is often transmitted by sending links or messages rather than engaging in extended conversation.

This represents a structural shift in how information is encountered, processed, and shared.

Jacobsen: What is the primary driver here—attention, emotion, or reasoning?

Rosner: Not reasoning. There is no time for sustained thinking. The process is about forming an impression and then reinforcing it.

People exist within informational silos or bubbles, where incoming content is filtered. For example, Carol often encounters material that aligns with what we have recently discussed, watched, or searched for. This can feel almost telepathic, but it is typically the result of algorithmic inference based on prior behaviour. In some cases, it is a coincidence; in others, it reflects clear signals provided to the system.

The result is what could be described as “curated pandering.” Content feeds are optimized to deliver material that has previously captured attention or elicited engagement.

Advertising Then and Now

Jacobsen: How does that differ from advertising and marketing in earlier decades, such as the 1970s?

Rosner: Earlier advertising was broad and generalized. It attempted to influence large audiences with relatively uniform messaging. Today’s systems are individualized and adaptive. Instead of broadcasting a single message, they tailor content to each user’s behavioural profile, continuously refining it based on responses.

This creates a more persistent and personalized form of influence, distinct from the mass-media model of previous decades.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Rick.

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is a Writer-Editor for www.rickrosner.org with more than 2,000 collaborative short-form and long-form interviews with Rick Rosner. He is the Founder and Publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343; 978-1-0673505) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN, 0018-7399; Online: ISSN, 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), Humanist Perspectives (ISSN: 1719-6337), A Further Inquiry (SubStack), Vocal, Medium, The Good Men Project, The New Enlightenment Project, The Washington Outsider, rabble.ca, and other media. His bibliography index can be found via the Jacobsen Bank at In-Sight Publishing comprised of more than 10,000 articles, interviews, and republications, in more than 200 outlets. He has served in national and international leadership roles within humanist and media organizations, held several academic fellowships, and currently serves on several boards. He is a member in good standing in numerous media organizations, including the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada (CRA: 88916 2541 RR0001), and Reporters Without Borders (SIREN: 343 684 221/SIRET: 343 684 221 00041/EIN: 20-0708028), and others.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.