Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1169 Scott Adams： GDP Zooms, Anonymous No More, Men Versus Women in Politics and Who Wins the Election

00:00:00.000 Bum bum, doo doo doo doo, bum bum bum bum, bum bum bum bum. 0.99

00:00:08.560 Hey everybody, come on in, come on in.

00:00:12.760 Yes, it's going to be another terrific day.

00:00:16.140 How is it that we can have a terrific day at the same time every time?

00:00:21.420 I don't know.

00:00:22.560 I don't know how we do it, but we've managed to do it somehow.

00:00:26.900 And this will be no exception.

00:00:28.780 Another great day.

00:00:30.040 Starts with a simultaneous sip.

00:00:31.940 And do you know what you need for the simultaneous sip?

00:00:34.760 Check your notes.

00:00:35.780 Yes, you do.

00:00:36.880 All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or a stein, a canteen jug

00:00:40.160 or a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:00:42.620 Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:00:44.820 I like coffee.

00:00:46.260 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that

00:00:50.520 makes everything better.

00:00:52.600 It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.

00:00:56.280 Go.

00:01:00.280 Ah.

00:01:03.080 Ah.

00:01:05.320 Sublime.

00:01:07.120 Well, well, well.

00:01:08.760 Yes, I'm back into my comfort blanket.

00:01:11.640 I'm considering doing two-a-day simulcasts when we get closer to the election here because

00:01:19.120 the country is getting a little nervous, a little bit nervous.

00:01:23.000 And if things get a little too tense, maybe I'll start doing my evening broadcasts again

00:01:29.600 in addition to the morning.

00:01:32.960 But let's talk about all the things.

00:01:35.420 There are many things.

00:01:36.460 Have you noticed that the news, as fake as the news has been, when you get close to election

00:01:46.040 day, the pretense that anybody is trying to give you actual news as opposed to propaganda

00:01:53.320 is just completely out the window.

00:01:55.420 And I swear to God, and this is not an exaggeration.

00:02:01.420 This will sound like one of those things you say because it sounds funny.

00:02:04.840 I'm not saying this to sound funny.

00:02:06.820 Absolutely literal truth.

00:02:10.380 I watch CNN for the laughs.

00:02:13.460 And it's because when they do things that are so blatantly propaganda as opposed to news,

00:02:19.880 I find it funny.

00:02:21.020 I don't know if any of you have reached that point yet where you just sort of turn it on

00:02:26.200 and you just start laughing at all the, you know, the exaggerated ridiculousness of it all.

00:02:32.860 So yesterday I turned on CNN and there was a story about, well, I'll give you one example.

00:02:39.080 So there's a story about Jared Kushner.

00:02:43.080 And they had this tape of him talking to, I guess, Woodward back in whenever he talked to him.

00:02:50.620 And I've got to find that exact quote that I'm absolutely sure I wrote down.

00:02:56.420 Here it is.

00:02:57.440 So this is what Jared Kushner said.

00:02:59.860 He said, Trump's now back in charge.

00:03:02.620 This is in a conversation he had back in April with Woodward, writer Woodward.

00:03:09.200 He goes, Trump's now back in charge.

00:03:11.100 It's not the doctors.

00:03:12.320 The first son-in-law and White House advisor Kushner said back in April.

00:03:17.480 So CNN has decided that this statement, Trump's now back in charge.

00:03:23.700 It's not the doctors.

00:03:25.580 They've decided to do what CNN does, which is to take it out of context.

00:03:32.160 Do you think that when Jared Kushner said this sentence, Trump's now back in charge.

00:03:37.240 It's not the doctors.

00:03:38.900 Do you interpret it the way CNN interprets it?

00:03:42.320 To mean that he will no longer take any advice from experts or doctors?

00:03:50.120 Is that your interpretation?

00:03:52.880 Because that just makes me laugh when I see them say, oh, that means that he's not going to look at any medical expertise anymore.

00:04:01.320 No, that doesn't say anything like that.

00:04:05.420 The only way this is news is if you willingly misinterpret it.

00:04:11.020 And you would have to do it willingly.

00:04:12.920 This is not one of those accidental ones.

00:04:15.060 Because you'd have to have an IQ of about nine to think that Jared Kushner talked to Bob Woodward, who is writing a book at the time, or I don't know if he was writing it at the time, but he's a journalist.

00:04:27.660 Why would you tell him that the President of the United States is going to stop paying attention to medical experts?

00:04:35.920 You wouldn't.

00:04:37.320 You wouldn't.

00:04:38.100 Of course you wouldn't.

00:04:39.220 In no world would Jared Kushner do that.

00:04:43.620 Now remember, all the bad things that are being said about Trump, you know, Trump is this, Trump is that, he has the mind of a child, or whatever, whatever the critics are saying.

00:04:54.680 Nobody says that about Jared. 0.99

00:04:57.280 Nobody says Jared Kushner is dumb. 0.98

00:05:00.280 Right? 0.93

00:05:00.580 Have you ever heard anybody say that?

00:05:03.760 Because it's so obviously not true.

00:05:07.060 You know, Jared's off there getting prison reform and peace in the Middle East and stuff.

00:05:12.040 He's obviously a brilliant guy.

00:05:14.780 And so would he ever go onto a phone call with a journalist who is not friendly to his boss, President Trump, and father-in-law, and would he ever say that Trump is going to start ignoring doctors?

00:05:28.220 Of course not.

00:05:30.900 And any adult would clearly know that's not what it means.

00:05:35.520 Rather, it's a statement about balance.

00:05:38.180 In other words, the decision won't be made exclusively by doctors.

00:05:43.840 It's going to be a combination of all factors, including the doctors, and the President will make the decision.

00:05:49.820 That's all Jared said.

00:05:50.780 And they turned it into news by acting as if they can't interpret simple English language.

00:06:00.660 So, as I was watching yesterday, this is a true story, no exaggeration.

00:06:05.300 I turned it on, and the first story I see, it might have been this one, I don't remember, was obviously not real news.

00:06:11.920 It was just something they willfully misinterpreted.

00:06:13.780 And I thought, well, there they go again, willfully misinterpreting something that's easy to interpret.

00:06:20.760 And then the next story was something that was only a story because they did a fake edit.

00:06:26.220 They left out part of a statement.

00:06:28.960 I'm like, well, okay, you know, those are two stories in a row that, with very little outside knowledge, is very obviously not real.

00:06:38.640 And I think, okay, I guess all the news is this.

00:06:43.100 So I turn off the TV.

00:06:45.340 Hours later, I turn on CNN again, and it's yet a third story that's completely made up based on willfully misinterpreting again.

00:06:55.940 It's like the entire network has turned into a misinterpreting network.

00:07:01.060 It doesn't matter what you do, they'll just take it the wrong way and make a story out of it.

00:07:05.480 It's the damnedest thing that we accept this as news.

00:07:08.640 But it was pretty hilarious.

00:07:10.940 Because there's a point where this stuff, you say to yourself, hey, and I certainly said this at one point.

00:07:19.540 I said, hey, I think with my incredible insight, I'm picking up on the beginning of a trend of some of these stories are not exactly accurate.

00:07:33.780 And then you think, am I the only one who's seeing this?

00:07:36.740 And then you realize other people are seeing it.

00:07:39.920 You're like, okay, you're seeing this too, right?

00:07:42.140 These stories are a little shaded, a little biased, a little bit left out of context.

00:07:48.960 But this week, as I was saying, it's so over the top that I can't take any of it seriously.

00:07:55.760 I just laugh at it.

00:07:56.820 When I look at it, it's like, well, that's not real.

00:07:58.980 Okay, that's not real.

00:08:00.020 Well, okay, that didn't happen.

00:08:02.440 And then move on.

00:08:04.680 All right.

00:08:06.860 Here's another perfect example of fake news.

00:08:11.160 So the U.S. economy grew a record.

00:08:14.020 It's a record, I tell you.

00:08:15.260 33.1% annual rate since last quarter, or last quarter, I agree that much.

00:08:23.000 And, of course, the way CNN has to report this headline.

00:08:27.520 All right.

00:08:27.880 How would you, if you were going to report a headline about incredible percentage growth in the GDP,

00:08:35.540 but you didn't want this president to look good, how would you do it?

00:08:41.300 Would you say, the economy is surging back even more than we expected?

00:08:47.160 Would you do that?

00:08:48.500 Because that feels accurate, right?

00:08:51.160 Economy is surging back.

00:08:52.960 True.

00:08:53.980 And it was a little bit more than the economists expected, even.

00:08:57.960 True.

00:08:59.020 Isn't that the way you'd tell the story?

00:09:01.140 Here's the headline that CNN used.

00:09:03.080 U.S. economy grew a record 33.1% annual rate last quarter.

00:09:08.640 But the pandemic remains an enormous threat.

00:09:13.640 Yes, they had to work the pandemic into the headline because the headline was too good by itself.

00:09:20.820 Now, is there anybody out there who was reading the news who did not know that there's a pandemic going on?

00:09:28.540 Probably not.

00:09:29.360 I don't think it added much to the knowledge of the reader.

00:09:33.080 That, hey, by the way, here's some good news on the economy.

00:09:37.220 But the pandemic, the pandemic is still going on.

00:09:42.260 A young child was saved from falling in a well.

00:09:46.460 But the pandemic's going on.

00:09:50.140 President Trump got three nominations for Nobel Peace Prize because peace is breaking out in the Middle East.

00:09:56.680 But there's a pandemic going on, pandemic, pandemic, pandemic going on.

00:10:01.760 Do you have to pair there's a pandemic going on with other news?

00:10:07.000 Doesn't seem like other news needs that pairing, does it?

00:10:10.480 We kind of know about the pandemic by now.

00:10:13.460 I've heard of it.

00:10:14.820 It's a thing.

00:10:15.520 All right.

00:10:18.380 But here's the fake news part about this.

00:10:21.460 Of course, the Democrats have been saying, and this is the delicious part about it,

00:10:26.140 Democrats have been mocking Trump for almost four years because he was claiming great progress in the economy.

00:10:35.480 And then they would say, the Democrats would say, well, but, you know, President Obama had greater percentage growth, increase in the economy and improvements, greater increase in improvements and even unemployment.

00:10:50.960 So, therefore, Obama was better, right?

00:10:54.480 Because he had better percentage growth. 1.00

00:10:56.760 No, this is news for idiots. 1.00

00:11:00.520 In fact, that's what they should call CNN, news for idiots. 1.00

00:11:04.140 You would have to be an idiot to not know that the reason Obama had tremendous percentage gain is because he was coming off of such a low base. 0.99

00:11:14.880 So it's easy to get big percentage gains when everything has fallen apart. 0.97

00:11:19.480 It's hard to get big percentage gains when you're closer to the full recovery, which is what Trump did.

00:11:25.600 So Trump's smaller gains, at least percentage-wise, in unemployment before the pandemic were more impressive than Obama's big gains because the big gains are easy.

00:11:40.080 They're coming off a low base.

00:11:42.260 And toward the top, it's really hard to squeeze out any extra juice from the lemon because you've squeezed all you can squeeze.

00:11:49.280 And Trump, to his credit, squeezed more juice out of that lemon, even though you didn't think it was possible.

00:11:58.100 He got unemployment to rates where even economists thought, I don't even know if you can get there.

00:12:04.140 So if you are unsophisticated, you think that the high percentage growth of one president somehow beats the low percentage growth of the other president, but it's only because they don't report it with proper context.

00:12:21.020 Now, that's been bugging you for three and a half years if you're a Trump supporter.

00:12:25.200 It's like, stop saying that Obama had better percentage.

00:12:30.060 It's not the percentage that matters.

00:12:32.340 It's not.

00:12:33.760 You have to look at the context to understand why that percentage is what it is.

00:12:38.820 Time goes by.

00:12:40.740 Days pass.

00:12:42.160 Here we are.

00:12:44.160 The news comes out that there's a record 33.1% increase in the GDP.

00:12:51.520 Should you be impressed by that?

00:12:54.380 No.

00:12:54.980 Because the context is that we're coming off a low base.

00:12:59.600 It's definitely better than if we didn't have this high percentage increase, but this increase is completely misleading in terms of any kind of historical meaning because it's coming off a low base.

00:13:12.940 It's exactly the credit that Obama was getting and didn't deserve because it was just a mathematical oddity.

00:13:20.540 Trump is now the beneficiary of the same limited thinking.

00:13:25.880 So Trump supporters could go out there and say 33% gain, historical, never seen that before.

00:13:32.900 And it is good.

00:13:33.900 And there's no question that this is good news.

00:13:37.380 It's unambiguously good news, no doubt about it.

00:13:40.440 But it just looks like even better news than it is.

00:13:43.820 And you get to use the Democrats' own trick against them because once they've demonstrated that the public can't tell the difference, as long as the percentage looks good,

00:13:53.420 the public is like, well, okay, well, it looks good to me.

00:13:58.140 Do you think this situation will be improving, the public not being able to understand the news in context?

00:14:04.940 Well, let me give you some new news.

00:14:08.520 This is from a tweet from Corey DeAngelis, who you should be following.

00:14:13.500 He tweets a lot about homeschooling and the failure of the teachers' unions, et cetera.

00:14:19.500 And there's some new information out about the 2019 results for 12th grade students, achievement in the United States.

00:14:28.840 All right.

00:14:29.260 So this is seniors, high school seniors in the United States.

00:14:33.260 37% of them met some standard for reading proficiency.

00:14:39.020 Let me say that again, because I hope that you just said to yourself, well, I must have heard that wrong.

00:14:46.560 Listen to this.

00:14:47.580 Only 37% of high school seniors met the reading proficiency level.

00:14:57.600 37%?

00:14:58.520 I want to use the F word really badly right now, but I'm going to hold back.

00:15:03.900 There's something really broken about that.

00:15:06.540 But what about math?

00:15:07.760 Oh, math will be better, right?

00:15:09.060 24% of seniors met math proficiency in the United States.

00:15:17.440 24%?

00:15:18.480 Are you kidding me?

00:15:20.440 Now, I'll tell you what this tells me.

00:15:22.780 It tells me that we need a President Kanye.

00:15:26.680 Perhaps not in 2020.

00:15:28.160 But as I was saying in a prior live stream, Kanye is talking about building entire communities where you design it from the bottom up to fit real people.

00:15:43.140 And when I say real people, I mean the people who do not have reading proficiency.

00:15:49.300 The people who do not have math proficiency.

00:15:51.880 Because it turns out there are more of them than there are the other kind of people. 0.98

00:15:56.440 And if you don't start quickly redesigning and tweaking your country so that the ordinary people of America can have a good life, you're on the wrong path.

00:16:09.700 I mean, that's eventually going to blow up.

00:16:11.880 You have to redesign from scratch to make a community that has the kind of jobs that the people who don't have reading proficiency can do.

00:16:20.760 It has the kind of expense for a lifestyle that a low-end job, again, not an insult because all work is, let me say this as clearly as possible, all work is honorable.

00:16:35.480 And I feel that.

00:16:36.600 That's not just a bumper sticker.

00:16:38.760 All work is honorable.

00:16:40.060 It doesn't matter what it is.

00:16:41.160 If you're contributing to the world, to the country, to your community, if you're doing something that needed to get done,

00:16:48.340 that is 100% honorable endeavor, salary aside.

00:16:54.840 So you're going to need to build a world that has two parts.

00:17:00.720 One part for people who have high education and achievement and want to really be on that path, which is pretty stressful.

00:17:09.500 But you need people like that.

00:17:11.640 And then you need another entire world that's almost agrarian in nature. 0.96

00:17:15.500 In other words, in the old days, you had a bunch of people who were farmers, and they didn't need to have much reading proficiency, right?

00:17:23.140 Then you had other people who might have been, you know, the lawyers and writers and politicians of the day and the business owners, et cetera, and they needed more education.

00:17:32.820 Well, we've transformed our society into one where we're telling everybody they need to learn to code.

00:17:43.800 Not everybody can learn to code.

00:17:46.420 You know, there's a cutoff level in your, I would say, both ambition and general intelligence where you're not going to learn to code.

00:17:55.380 That's just not a thing. 0.81

00:17:56.440 And pretending that everybody will learn to code or learn to have some high-end job if only we give them enough education is really sort of a fool's strategy.

00:18:08.760 If we want a strategy that could work, I mean, even has a chance of working, it's the Kanye strategy where you've got to redesign.

00:18:16.080 You've got to re-engineer your whole situation so that people who are ordinary people who are good people, they just not are academically inclined.

00:18:27.040 They have, you know, maybe tons of skills that you and I don't have, they're just not academically inclined.

00:18:32.320 They need a life, too.

00:18:34.520 So if we don't make that possible, we've got big problems coming.

00:18:38.040 So President Kanye, someday in the future to fix that.

00:18:44.920 There's some, let's do this story first.

00:18:51.100 So there's an indication, speaking of Kanye, that Trump is actually within the striking distance of winning Minnesota.

00:19:01.080 Now, if you don't follow presidential politics much, that didn't mean too much because it's just the state and, you know, you think, well, he could win that state.

00:19:11.560 But it's Minnesota, right?

00:19:13.560 Minnesota should never go to a Republican if everything you know about the world makes sense.

00:19:19.660 So the fact that I think Trump has come within the margin of error on at least some polls in Minnesota, and part of the reason is that Kanye is pretty popular in Minnesota for some reason.

00:19:34.660 I mean, not for some reason, he's Kanye.

00:19:36.420 But he's getting enough votes as a write-in, or he might be on the ballot, I forget, in Minnesota, but he's actually taking enough of a Biden that there's a non-zero chance, probably still against, it's still unlikely, I think, but there's a non-zero chance that Trump, of all people, could win Minnesota.

00:20:00.640 This is a thing that might actually happen.

00:20:03.100 Now, I'm not going to predict it.

00:20:04.400 I'm just saying, the fact that he's within breathing distance, like Minnesota can feel his hot breath on the back of their neck, that wasn't supposed to happen.

00:20:15.820 And it makes you wonder if any of our polls are reliable at this point.

00:20:21.520 All right.

00:20:22.940 Did you see the, you probably saw the clips of Jack Dorsey answering questions from senators, such as Senator Cruz.

00:20:34.400 And Ron Johnson, we're grilling Jack Dorsey.

00:20:38.220 And I always put myself in the position of the person being grilled.

00:20:43.660 Because for some reason, I always imagined that my future would include being grilled by Congress at some point.

00:20:50.900 I just feel like that's in my future.

00:20:52.560 And I always have.

00:20:53.560 Isn't that weird?

00:20:54.220 It's a strange image for, you know, a high school student to have.

00:21:00.340 But my entire life, from an early life, I always imagined that eventually I would be grilled by Congress.

00:21:09.360 For what?

00:21:10.140 I don't know.

00:21:11.260 Just in my head, I just have this image that I'm the one who is, you know, in the Jack Dorsey seat yesterday.

00:21:18.560 I'm sure Jack didn't imagine that he would be grilled by Congress one day.

00:21:22.260 Maybe he did.

00:21:22.860 Who knows?

00:21:24.720 But here's what I took away from that.

00:21:26.840 First takeaway is never be on the other side of Ted Cruz.

00:21:33.260 How would you like to be, you know, testifying or whatever it's called in front of Congress?

00:21:40.140 And the person who is giving you hostile questioning is Ted Cruz, who is extraordinarily gifted in this lawyerly role to the point where he's argued in one cases at the Supreme Court.

00:21:54.540 You don't want the pit bull who wins cases at the Supreme Court to be asking you questions in public.

00:22:02.480 Right.

00:22:02.620 So that's the first thing.

00:22:03.640 And whenever I see Ted Cruz in that mode, I just really appreciate him as an American, meaning I'm glad he's on my side, my side being America, not in this case politically, but just America.

00:22:18.620 It's just good to have people who have that level of skill doing things that require that level of skill.

00:22:25.920 So he's one of those people who makes me feel confident about the Republic because you have people who are just that much capability.

00:22:33.640 So that aside, so Jack Dorsey came with some suggestions ahead of time, which was a good strategy.

00:22:41.720 And I don't know if I can characterize them right or if I understand them completely.

00:22:46.960 But among his ideas are that the algorithm would have more transparency, as would their decision-making process about who gets banned or metered or whatever the words are.

00:22:58.760 So Jack Dorsey wants more transparency within Twitter on the algorithm.

00:23:06.080 He wants an appeals process that's straightforward.

00:23:10.200 So if somebody gets banned or limited on Twitter, they have a direct human being that can go through a process and get a human to decide.

00:23:20.520 I like that part.

00:23:22.300 There is, even more provocatively, you might be able to choose your own algorithm someday.

00:23:26.780 So there might be third-party algorithms, and you get to just pick one.

00:23:31.880 Oh, I'll take the Republican algorithm.

00:23:35.700 I don't know.

00:23:36.000 I'm just making that one up.

00:23:37.560 But I like that.

00:23:39.860 If you get to choose your own algorithm, then the algorithms are competing against each other in a way.

00:23:46.120 So maybe that's good.

00:23:47.380 Maybe the free market can fix things that we're not clever enough to fix directly.

00:23:52.560 And then Jack Dorsey says that Twitter should publish its moderation practices so that you know exactly what they do and why.

00:24:04.720 Now, here's the part where I was imagining myself in the receiving end of this grilling, because they went at him pretty hard.

00:24:14.020 So Ron Johnson was grilling Jack about, did they know that the New York Post article that they banned on Twitter, did they know it wasn't true?

00:24:27.500 And Jack said no, that they did not know it wasn't true, but it got banned anyway.

00:24:34.240 Now, here's the part that I wished I had been in Jack's seat.

00:24:39.680 When Ron Johnson was grilling him, Ron was doing this thing where he pretends, as if Jack Dorsey had not already very publicly said,

00:24:53.120 oh, that was a mistake, we should not have done that, we have corrected it.

00:24:57.820 So he's confessed with no ambiguity, there's no but-ifs, nothing like that.

00:25:06.340 He just said, clear, unambiguous mistake, so we fixed it quickly.

00:25:13.520 That's not much to complain about, right?

00:25:16.020 If a CEO says that was a mistake, we fixed it in 24 hours, I don't care what the mistake is, unless somebody's dying or something.

00:25:24.940 That's pretty good, right?

00:25:26.660 That's pretty good.

00:25:27.820 But Ron Johnson does this angry questioning that makes the viewer think that that sequence hadn't already happened.

00:25:36.340 And Jack, being, you know, the polite, smart CEO that he was, just sort of sits there and listens to it,

00:25:42.700 and then just sort of softly responds that they had, you know, confessed that and taken care of it.

00:25:49.540 But I really wished I had been in that chair, because I would have been a lot more aggressive about responding to that.

00:25:56.460 I think I would have said something closer to, I don't know exactly what I would have said, but something closer to,

00:26:03.820 well, you know, Senator, we've already said that that was a mistake and corrected it.

00:26:08.180 Is there something else we should do to go back to the past?

00:26:11.280 We're kind of focused on the future here, but if you'd like to talk about the things we all agree about,

00:26:18.000 we all agree that that shouldn't have happened, but I hope that you're happy that we corrected it in 24 hours,

00:26:23.960 and I hope that you're happy that we're here, coming with some legitimate suggestions for how to make things better.

00:26:29.740 But if you'd like to talk about the things we agree about, that that was not the right decision, but we fixed it quickly,

00:26:38.080 I'd like to spend some more time on that, because I think the public should know how quickly we responded to that.

00:26:45.320 Yeah, somebody in the comments is saying quickly.

00:26:49.040 Quickly in 24 hours.

00:26:50.920 I think that was what Jack said.

00:26:52.760 Now, my understanding is that, is it true that the New York Post account is still frozen?

00:27:01.060 So somehow I'm maybe not understanding the issue as well as I should,

00:27:05.620 because I don't know what it was they changed in 24 hours,

00:27:08.180 because I think the account is still locked, but I need a fact check on that.

00:27:12.360 Anyway, the larger point is that there are some seemingly pretty good ideas for fixing things,

00:27:21.140 if they could actually be implemented.

00:27:24.900 I think they also need a get-in-a-jail-free, not-free, but get-in-a-jail process,

00:27:30.620 where somebody who's been banned permanently can maybe wait three years or pick a number,

00:27:37.760 and that after three years there should be some independent board that decides whether they should come back.

00:27:43.640 I would like to volunteer.

00:27:45.040 Should there ever be an appeals board for Twitter bad behavior,

00:27:52.500 and you need relatively independent people to decide whether it is worthy of bringing them back,

00:28:00.360 I would volunteer for that.

00:28:02.260 And I don't think anybody should do more than, say, a one-year term or something.

00:28:07.040 But I would do one-year of a term as a relatively, you know,

00:28:12.940 and you have to say relatively because there's nobody who's unbiased.

00:28:16.000 You can't really get all the way to unbiased.

00:28:18.780 But you could imagine groups of people such as, I'll just throw out some names, Tim Poole.

00:28:25.760 If Tim Poole were one of the people with a one-year term with some other people

00:28:31.860 to decide whether people should be brought back onto Twitter after whatever bad behavior and some time has passed,

00:28:39.560 wouldn't you trust him?

00:28:41.200 You'd say, oh, yeah, he is completely capable of seeing a left opinion and a right opinion and judging appropriately.

00:28:49.060 I feel like I'm in that category.

00:28:51.760 I feel like you could probably come up with another half dozen names pretty quickly

00:28:55.320 of people who would not be universally loved by left or right.

00:29:00.920 But at least you look at them and you say, yeah, maybe I don't love that one choice,

00:29:06.300 but I see what you're doing, you know, with the other, say, five people or whatever there are.

00:29:11.100 I see what you're going for.

00:29:12.240 You're going for people who at least have demonstrated

00:29:15.300 they have the capability of taking the other side's point of view sometimes.

00:29:21.160 I'm seeing some other names on here.

00:29:22.940 I see Jimmy Dore.

00:29:23.780 I don't know enough about him to know if that is real.

00:29:30.180 So somebody in the comments is saying that Jack fixing it is fake news.

00:29:35.540 Now, you have to worry that any proposed solutions are not genuine, right?

00:29:43.380 I mean, that's a reasonable thing to worry about.

00:29:46.540 And I don't think there's any way to know until you see actual implementation.

00:29:51.180 As I say often, ideas are worthless because everybody has ideas.

00:29:56.680 Ideas are free.

00:29:57.960 You want some ideas?

00:29:58.920 I got seven of them I just thought of just now.

00:30:02.360 Ideas are free.

00:30:03.140 But implementation is kind of hard and rare and valuable.

00:30:07.320 So if Twitter can implement and we can observe it, the things which they're talking about,

00:30:13.300 that would be, I think these would be real solutions.

00:30:16.320 They look genuine in the sense that they're the right kinds of things.

00:30:19.840 But you have to wait for the implementation.

00:30:22.420 That is correct.

00:30:23.860 All right.

00:30:24.180 The other fun thing is that in 2018, there was this big article and then there was a book.

00:30:29.840 But the article was written by an anonymous source who was allegedly a high-level White House person

00:30:38.340 who was saying bad things about the president and alleged that people were doing things behind

00:30:43.260 the president's back, meaning the staff, to try to thwart him in his bad ways.

00:30:49.500 And there was lots of guessing at the time of who wrote it.

00:30:52.040 Nobody knew.

00:30:52.540 But we now know it's somebody named Miles Taylor, former DHS chief of staff.

00:30:59.480 And, of course, the big story here is that he was not exactly or not even close to being a senior staff member.

00:31:08.580 And he was rarely or never in the room with the president.

00:31:14.500 And, in fact, senior staff members would not necessarily even know he existed.

00:31:19.260 So that's the level of seniority he had, which is the senior people probably never met him, didn't know his name.

00:31:29.280 But he was sort of oversold by the context and the New York Times, I would say, as being a little bit higher up than he was.

00:31:38.040 So he's come forward.

00:31:39.700 And, of course, he had lied on CNN when they asked him if he was anonymous.

00:31:43.980 And he said flat out no.

00:31:45.320 And then Chris Cuomo asked him about that.

00:31:50.900 And Miles Taylor said that his reasoning, and he had actually said in the document or the book, I think,

00:31:58.640 he said that if he had been asked, he would lie.

00:32:01.160 Because what he wanted to do was make sure that it wasn't personal.

00:32:05.320 In other words, he didn't become the subject of the attacks.

00:32:08.680 His explanation is he wanted the focus to be on the points he was making, not on him personally.

00:32:16.900 And that he would be the subject of insults, and then it would divert from his point.

00:32:21.900 So do you think he had a point that if we knew who he was, that he would be insulted and that the attention would go toward those insults?

00:32:32.140 Yeah, he was right about that. 0.67

00:32:37.280 Because as soon as I saw him, I thought, man, he's one frat boy, douchebag-looking guy with a little bit too much hair.

00:32:45.620 And that was the first thing I thought about him. 0.98

00:32:48.100 It was like, God, what a douchebag this guy is. 0.98

00:32:51.000 So did anybody else insult him? 0.99

00:32:53.520 Let's see.

00:32:53.980 White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in a statement Wednesday after Taylor's identity was revealed,

00:33:01.140 quote, 0.50

00:33:02.100 This low-level, disgruntled former staffer is a liar and coward who chose anonymity over action and leaking over leading. 0.85

00:33:12.100 So maybe he had a little bit of a point there. 0.99

00:33:15.860 It turns out that the focus is on him now.

00:33:19.980 And most of that focus is insulting, his level of authority, his looks, in my case.

00:33:28.300 And it's funny that I'm making fun of his looks because he's, you know, unambiguously, he's a good-looking guy.

00:33:37.120 He's better looking than I am. 0.63

00:33:38.900 But he does have sort of a frat boy, douchebag look. 0.66

00:33:43.120 Can't take that away from him. 0.94

00:33:44.480 All right.

00:33:47.020 And he wrote stuff like he thought that Trump's team was trying to sabotage him and stuff.

00:33:52.620 Anyway, once you realize who it is, you just start thinking to yourself, oh, it's just a disgruntled employee.

00:33:59.600 And then you put it in context.

00:34:03.020 Here's the funniest part of the story and the payoff.

00:34:05.540 So CNN reports, and finally this is real news, they report that this guy is a public liar because he lied on CNN to CNN.

00:34:21.440 So we don't have to wonder if he will lie in public.

00:34:25.220 He's actually famous for it because he lied to CNN and even they called him out.

00:34:30.280 And then they hired him.

00:34:32.340 So now he works for CNN. 0.99

00:34:33.660 So CNN reports that he is a public liar. 0.92

00:34:41.380 And then they hired him.

00:34:43.580 And I'm thinking, well, he's kind of perfect.

00:34:46.700 He's kind of perfect.

00:34:48.020 And I realized that I think I could get a job at CNN if I could learn to lie a little bit better and become kind of known for it.

00:34:57.080 Then I'd get myself a job. 0.89

00:34:58.680 I'd be up there with Clapper and, you know, all the rest of the liars. 0.95

00:35:02.540 All right. 0.69

00:35:04.200 Here's the weirdest story.

00:35:07.720 Tucker Carlson has this story about being in Los Angeles to talk to Tony Bobulinski, the Biden ex-business partner, who is whistleblowing on him.

00:35:19.560 And he asked for a trove of new documents implicating Joe Biden's shady dealings to be mailed to him by some, you know, overnight service.

00:35:29.800 And the documents were stolen in the process.

00:35:34.580 The container, the box showed up, but it was empty and the documents were stolen.

00:35:39.400 Now, I have to think that whoever provided the documents kept a copy.

00:35:44.600 So I don't think we have to worry about that information not existing somewhere, but you do have to wonder about who had the wherewithal and the capability to know what was in that package and to get it.

00:35:59.840 And that's, it's scary if anybody had that capability.

00:36:05.080 And if it was a random crime, it's the weirdest random crime there ever was.

00:36:09.340 And if it wasn't random, it's really scary.

00:36:12.260 Given the gigantic difference between male and female voters and their preferences for Trump versus Biden, in your mind, does it feel like this election is the boys against the girls?

00:36:32.320 I'm just wondering if it's starting to feel like that to you, because there's lots of ways to frame this.

00:36:38.100 You could say it's Democrats versus Republicans.

00:36:41.720 It's liberals versus conservatives.

00:36:45.080 So there are a million ways that you could say what it is.

00:36:48.460 But to me, it's really devolved into the boys against the girls.

00:36:54.360 Because the girls are firmly in charge. 1.00

00:36:57.840 And here I mean women and men, not boys and girls.

00:37:01.120 But the women are firmly in charge in the Democratic side, I would say. 1.00

00:37:06.820 And it seems that there's more of a male vibe.

00:37:11.380 Of course, there are both men and women in both cases.

00:37:14.760 But almost as if there's a testosterone difference.

00:37:19.420 Because I'm not the first one to note this.

00:37:23.760 And there's no other, there's no, there's no non-insulting sounding way to say what I'm going to say.

00:37:32.100 So just trust me that I'm not saying this to be insulting.

00:37:37.280 I'm saying it as an observation.

00:37:39.180 If it sounds insulting, I can't help it.

00:37:43.220 Democrats are largely beta males and women. 0.53

00:37:46.580 And the exception being a lot of black men who, in large numbers, seem to be moving to Trump.

00:37:56.900 Because to me, that was the one thing that didn't make sense.

00:38:01.000 Because there were a lot of black men who you would not say are beta males.

00:38:05.700 And I kept thinking, I feel like they're in the wrong party.

00:38:08.920 It just feels like that's not really the fit.

00:38:12.080 Forget about policy.

00:38:12.580 Forget about who's done what for who over the years.

00:38:16.460 Forget about any of that.

00:38:18.100 It just seemed like apples and oranges a little bit.

00:38:21.780 And so I'm not surprised even a little bit that there's movement toward Trump in the black community.

00:38:27.860 And primarily the men.

00:38:29.640 Because I think there is a real male-female vibe that's forming completely unconsciously.

00:38:35.580 And, yeah, the Democrat men who are comfortable in a female-led organization tend to be a certain characteristic.

00:38:50.180 Now, of course, these are gross generalities.

00:38:52.600 And there are millions of exceptions.

00:38:54.780 And I'm not saying that there aren't manly men in the Democratic Party.

00:38:59.560 And I'm not saying that there aren't every type in the Republican Party.

00:39:03.180 But I feel like the trend and the gravity and the weight is starting to separate in that way.

00:39:10.500 And that if you thought of it in the past as more of an ethnic thing, like the Democrats or the, let's say, the non-white or more plurality, more diversity, if that's what you were thinking, it's true. 0.92

00:39:27.340 But I feel like it's mostly now female versus male.

00:39:32.200 Like that's the dominant theme that's starting to emerge but isn't fully emerged.

00:39:37.820 But it feels like it's starting to emerge that way.

00:39:42.920 There's, of course, you've heard that there's coronavirus is breaking out.

00:39:48.100 We've got some more infections in the United States.

00:39:50.480 But Europe is having a tough time.

00:39:52.180 So they're getting a big second wave.

00:39:54.000 We think that'll hit the United States too, so we're not going to gloat over that.

00:39:58.180 But there's some thinking, and this is very non-confirmed, more likely not true than true, but it's worth talking about, which is that the coronavirus seems to have mutated, in Europe anyway.

00:40:11.380 And Spain, which is having a big problem with the flare-up, has mostly the mutation kind.

00:40:17.840 So it's the new version of the coronavirus is what a big part of the surge is in Europe.

00:40:24.560 And some people are saying, uh-oh, maybe the new one is a little extra catchy.

00:40:31.220 Maybe it's worse.

00:40:32.420 Other people are saying there's no indication of that.

00:40:35.640 It might be just different.

00:40:36.840 It doesn't mean it's worse.

00:40:37.880 It could be just a minor evolution, but it's basically the same thing.

00:40:42.120 It just looks a little different.

00:40:43.100 But I wonder if we've developed, and this is just me talking, this is nobody who knows what they're talking about talking.

00:40:52.520 This is just me, and I don't know what I'm talking about.

00:40:55.380 It makes me wonder, just a hypothesis, if we had reached something closer to herd immunity to the first version,

00:41:03.940 and that without the second version, maybe we wouldn't see as much of a second wave.

00:41:10.000 Now, obviously, there's a seasonality to it that will definitely have an impact,

00:41:14.240 but maybe it wouldn't be as big a second wave if not for the mutation.

00:41:18.900 I think the experts are still betting against that, and they're probably right, 1.00

00:41:22.520 but I just want to put that out there.

00:41:24.680 You know, if you're trying to figure out, if I observe the world, what model makes everything make sense?

00:41:31.600 And while this might not be true, what would make sense is that the deaths were going down,

00:41:40.660 even as the infections were going up, would indicate that maybe some percentage of the public

00:41:46.400 has a natural immunity beyond just being young,

00:41:50.260 and that maybe we had started reaching the edge of that group of people who were susceptible,

00:41:56.780 and that you had to have a mutation to get more people.

00:42:01.600 It could be that the mutation is important, but we'll find out.

00:42:04.660 I was still bet against it being important, but not impossible.

00:42:10.740 More terror attacks in France.

00:42:14.700 Two more terror attacks within hours of each other.

00:42:17.980 Three people killed, two more of them beheaded.

00:42:20.880 So this beheading thing is turning into a little mini trend in France.

00:42:26.640 And here's a question that I think Nassim Taleb wrote about once,

00:42:34.520 and it is, how many Islamic citizens do you need 0.96

00:42:41.440 before your country is guaranteed to become Islamic as a dominant theme?

00:42:48.260 What do you think is the percentage?

00:42:52.560 And I don't know what the percentage is in the United States.

00:42:55.280 Under 5%, I guess.

00:42:58.020 But in France, what's the percentage?

00:43:00.660 I don't know the percentage.

00:43:02.320 But I think the percentage is lower than you think.

00:43:04.740 I think it's lower than you think.

00:43:11.100 I think that, and I think this was Taleb talking about this,

00:43:14.460 that somewhere around 15%, if you have a 15% Islamic citizenship,

00:43:21.780 that you're pretty much guaranteed to become an Islamic country.

00:43:25.180 And the thinking beyond that is that they have a superior system.

00:43:30.300 So it's the system, it's not the belief.

00:43:33.100 And the system involves that you can't leave.

00:43:37.320 It's tough to leave.

00:43:38.380 You could be killed if you leave the faith. 0.98

00:43:42.680 So Islam is sticky and a little bit more aggressive. 1.00

00:43:46.940 So there's some thought that if you give 15% citizenship, 0.71

00:43:51.560 or at least residence, Islamic, that it's all going to go Islamic.

00:43:56.240 And I think France is there, right?

00:43:58.600 Am I wrong?

00:43:59.360 I think France is at that limit or close to it,

00:44:02.360 which would suggest that France will become an Islamic country.

00:44:08.020 And I would say that they're heading that way.

00:44:10.080 If I had to bet, I would bet France will become Islamic. 1.00

00:44:13.740 If I had to put money on it, but it's not next year.

00:44:18.700 I mean, it's going to take a while.

00:44:20.260 But I would bet that they will be an Islamic country

00:44:24.280 and say one generation.

00:44:29.080 The LAPD got approval to begin recording video footage

00:44:34.340 from their helicopters above protesters.

00:44:37.820 Now, I don't know how much difference that's going to make

00:44:39.900 because the protesters mostly have masks.

00:44:42.100 But that's kind of chilling, isn't it?

00:44:46.240 They'll have video of all the protesters.

00:44:49.540 Obviously, they'll be using facial recognition.

00:44:53.520 There's reports they already have been.

00:44:55.520 They'll use more of it, I'm sure.

00:44:57.660 I'm not too concerned about this story

00:45:00.280 when everybody's wearing masks

00:45:02.180 because I don't think it's going to make that much difference.

00:45:04.280 But I like where it's going

00:45:08.960 because the protests only work

00:45:12.220 because they have safety in numbers

00:45:14.480 and they all dress, at least the Antifa people,

00:45:17.840 dress alike with the black block clothing.

00:45:20.680 And so they can get away with stuff.

00:45:22.900 Every time you add a little bit more,

00:45:25.000 let's say, transparency to what's going on,

00:45:28.160 which is what the video would do,

00:45:30.440 fewer people are going to be bold enough

00:45:32.360 to take that chance.

00:45:34.960 So I think that's a good step in terms of law and order

00:45:37.260 and maybe a step in the wrong direction for civil liberties. 0.95

00:45:41.500 But something had to give, right?

00:45:44.460 You couldn't go forever letting the protesters

00:45:46.780 do whatever they want.

00:45:48.000 That wasn't an option.

00:45:50.640 And if the only way to stop them

00:45:51.980 involves a little hit to our civil liberties,

00:45:57.260 well, you only had two options.

00:46:00.100 Right?

00:46:02.260 All right.

00:46:05.640 Here's a...

00:46:07.260 I'd like to wrap this up with a little lesson on success.

00:46:11.820 Are you ready?

00:46:13.380 A lesson on success.

00:46:15.060 There are lots of ways to be successful.

00:46:18.000 Some of them involve luck and inheritance and crime

00:46:21.460 and those things.

00:46:22.860 And some of them are just hard work

00:46:24.560 and being smart and staying out of jail.

00:46:27.100 And those are good.

00:46:28.480 But there are more, let's say,

00:46:32.200 subtle and unique and useful ways to be successful.

00:46:37.480 And I've been modeling one of them in front of you

00:46:40.340 for the last several years,

00:46:41.440 and I want to put some words to it.

00:46:43.500 One of the things I talk about all the time

00:46:45.280 is A-B testing.

00:46:48.000 Where you just try something,

00:46:49.460 see if it works,

00:46:50.180 and then quickly try something else

00:46:51.720 to see if that's better

00:46:52.660 until you sort of test your way to success.

00:46:56.300 You've seen me try to transfer

00:46:57.920 or evolve from cartoonist to whatever this is.

00:47:03.340 Political pundit or whatever live streaming is.

00:47:07.180 I don't know if it has a career name to it.

00:47:10.200 But what you've watched is from the beginning,

00:47:12.440 I started very small with small risk.

00:47:14.760 And just, I literally, on day one,

00:47:16.280 I picked up my phone and said,

00:47:18.440 I'd like to know more about this Periscope thing,

00:47:21.580 just to know more about it.

00:47:23.320 I felt like that was something my talents that needed.

00:47:26.280 So I started just Periscoping with my phone in my hand,

00:47:29.740 and the quality was terrible.

00:47:31.060 And I think, you know,

00:47:32.880 a dozen people showed up the first time.

00:47:35.240 But I learned something.

00:47:37.200 And then I thought,

00:47:37.900 huh, maybe I'll do this again.

00:47:39.880 And I kept experimenting up,

00:47:41.940 buying studio equipment,

00:47:44.840 experimenting with sound,

00:47:46.780 researching video.

00:47:47.780 I bought a number of different expensive devices like that.

00:47:51.520 There's a $13,000 device over my shoulder here

00:47:55.040 for studio production, etc.

00:47:58.280 Now, none of the expensive equipment worked.

00:48:01.760 And when I say worked,

00:48:03.540 I don't mean it was broken.

00:48:05.540 I mean that for what I wanted to accomplish,

00:48:07.820 it didn't work.

00:48:09.100 And here's what I mean.

00:48:10.440 My other requirement,

00:48:12.280 and these are some of my principles for success,

00:48:14.780 and we'll put them all together.

00:48:16.120 So principle number one

00:48:17.240 is experimenting your way continuously.

00:48:21.100 So you're never done experimenting.

00:48:23.220 It's just every day.

00:48:24.200 Like, boom, boom, boom, boom.

00:48:25.140 You're always experimenting.

00:48:27.020 So I've experimented with my setup and my technology

00:48:30.100 until I have this setup,

00:48:31.900 which I believe is the best I can get to

00:48:34.680 while maintaining my other principles,

00:48:37.280 which I'll talk about in a minute.

00:48:38.880 So right now I've got motorized curtains,

00:48:42.040 which is huge.

00:48:43.560 So I can do a blackout of all my light.

00:48:46.340 I've got two ring lights facing the walls,

00:48:49.400 so I'm getting indirect light.

00:48:51.320 And I'm using two iPads together,

00:48:54.200 clipped together with a potato chip bag clip

00:48:57.600 so that they don't fall off the stand.

00:49:00.300 And so I have two live streams going,

00:49:02.840 YouTube and Periscope simultaneously,

00:49:05.020 on two iPads that are both in front of me here.

00:49:08.620 Now, I tried every complicated technology

00:49:11.880 to do what I'm doing right now.

00:49:14.440 And you could get better quality.

00:49:17.060 You could get better video.

00:49:18.180 You'd have to record it to do that.

00:49:20.860 Live streaming is a lower resolution.

00:49:23.480 And you could get better sound,

00:49:25.240 you know, with full production things,

00:49:26.820 but you'd have to soundproof the room, etc.

00:49:29.200 And here's what I would lose

00:49:30.980 if I went to the higher level of quality.

00:49:34.460 Number one, it wouldn't be fun anymore

00:49:36.580 because I like the content

00:49:39.000 and the getting ready for it.

00:49:40.340 I like the experience.

00:49:41.180 I love actually being live on the live stream.

00:49:44.320 It's partly why I do it,

00:49:45.500 because I like it.

00:49:46.820 And I wouldn't enjoy it

00:49:48.260 if I had to spend an hour every morning

00:49:50.580 reloading my software

00:49:52.800 and testing and rebooting.

00:49:55.700 And that's what you do

00:49:56.320 with the complicated systems.

00:49:58.080 You need either a full-time engineer

00:50:00.180 or a techie

00:50:01.400 who works with you the whole time.

00:50:03.740 And then you're managing people.

00:50:05.900 It's not what I wanted to do.

00:50:07.980 I don't want to manage people.

00:50:09.540 I want to just do this.

00:50:11.420 I just want to talk to you.

00:50:14.260 And so I managed,

00:50:16.520 but through testing,

00:50:17.580 to get to the quality

00:50:18.560 up to the point

00:50:19.560 where these simple lavalier microphones,

00:50:22.500 I've got two of them,

00:50:23.340 one for each iPad,

00:50:24.840 and the iPad quality

00:50:26.200 and the lighting, etc.,

00:50:27.400 were good enough

00:50:28.360 for live streaming

00:50:30.300 in a way that YouTube would say,

00:50:33.060 oh, these videos are high enough quality.

00:50:35.800 Could be better.

00:50:36.820 But they're high enough quality

00:50:38.160 that we can promote them, etc.

00:50:41.700 So once I reached a certain level

00:50:43.660 and it was live streamed

00:50:45.160 instead of recorded,

00:50:46.580 because what I used to do

00:50:47.560 is take the Periscope

00:50:49.000 and upload it onto YouTube

00:50:51.140 and it was lower quality

00:50:52.200 and took longer.

00:50:54.020 So, yes,

00:50:56.800 and it wouldn't be as personal.

00:50:58.180 I didn't want this

00:50:59.500 to be a slick production.

00:51:02.500 So here were the other requirements.

00:51:04.060 It had to be dead simple

00:51:05.300 so that I could do it myself.

00:51:08.000 Because as soon as you add

00:51:09.560 an assistant in the room,

00:51:12.420 it's just the chemistry is wrong.

00:51:14.440 And then I'm managing people

00:51:15.920 and they've got problems

00:51:17.620 and they didn't show up today

00:51:18.940 and they've got a question,

00:51:20.940 but I'm trying to think

00:51:22.020 of what I'm going to say,

00:51:23.220 but now I'm drawn

00:51:24.200 into the technical problem

00:51:25.640 because I need to answer a question.

00:51:27.280 So, A-B testing,

00:51:31.700 develop your talent stack relentlessly.

00:51:34.600 In other words,

00:51:35.940 the several talents it takes

00:51:38.660 to do what I'm doing now,

00:51:40.320 I had to assemble over time.

00:51:42.340 Learn lighting,

00:51:43.380 learn sound,

00:51:44.560 learn live stream,

00:51:46.800 learn how the algorithm works

00:51:48.760 on YouTube,

00:51:49.600 learn how to promote it,

00:51:50.760 learn how to upload it.

00:51:52.240 There's a lot.

00:51:53.280 But you just keep edging up,

00:51:56.880 keep building that talent stack,

00:51:58.980 keep A-B testing continuously,

00:52:01.160 never stop.

00:52:02.100 I'm not done now by any means.

00:52:03.740 I'll keep going.

00:52:05.180 And there you are.

00:52:08.600 And then the last part

00:52:09.440 is getting lucky

00:52:10.400 because luck is kind of required

00:52:13.960 for success.

00:52:15.460 Because if you don't have good luck,

00:52:17.240 you might have bad luck

00:52:18.340 and that's not going to help you.

00:52:19.780 So, how do you make luck happen

00:52:22.600 if you don't have direct control

00:52:24.460 over the universe?

00:52:27.200 And the way that you make luck happen

00:52:29.120 is you go where the energy is

00:52:31.120 and you practice in public

00:52:33.560 and you wait.

00:52:36.040 That's it.

00:52:36.940 If you go where the energy is,

00:52:38.520 you're going to find more luck.

00:52:39.640 For example,

00:52:40.280 when I graduated from college,

00:52:42.340 I was in a very small town

00:52:43.960 in upstate New York

00:52:45.000 and so I knew that

00:52:46.340 there wouldn't be much luck,

00:52:48.280 you could call it opportunity,

00:52:49.780 but I'm going to call it luck.

00:52:51.260 I'm not going to run into people

00:52:52.520 that could, you know,

00:52:53.980 help me someday.

00:52:55.140 I'm not going to accidentally

00:52:56.260 be part of a startup.

00:52:58.760 I need to go where there's energy.

00:53:00.940 So, I moved to California.

00:53:02.320 That was the first thing

00:53:03.140 I did after college

00:53:04.120 because I wanted to be

00:53:05.280 where luck could happen

00:53:06.660 and that was a good play.

00:53:09.420 In this case,

00:53:10.360 I moved to the more dynamic video field.

00:53:14.680 So, it was obvious that

00:53:17.040 live streaming and video

00:53:20.040 is the big growing thing.

00:53:22.660 So, you go where the energy is

00:53:24.140 and you have more chance

00:53:25.420 of getting lucky

00:53:26.060 because there's just more stuff happening.

00:53:28.580 And then,

00:53:30.160 if you can stay in business long enough

00:53:33.960 and certainly,

00:53:35.820 it wasn't like I was making money

00:53:37.600 or anything from doing this

00:53:38.640 for the first three years,

00:53:40.540 but I didn't go out of business.

00:53:43.620 In other words,

00:53:44.160 it wasn't anything

00:53:44.840 to make me stop doing it.

00:53:46.640 I could just keep getting better

00:53:48.200 and wait for some luck to happen

00:53:49.900 and then some luck happened.

00:53:52.840 It came in the form of this election.

00:53:57.120 Of course,

00:53:57.940 it's not luck.

00:53:58.600 It was scheduled.

00:53:59.680 But the election makes

00:54:01.240 all the live streaming stuff

00:54:02.540 on this topic go crazy

00:54:03.800 so all my numbers went through the roof

00:54:05.640 because it's the right topic

00:54:07.060 at the right time.

00:54:08.220 But also the coronavirus.

00:54:09.360 The coronavirus,

00:54:11.420 obviously,

00:54:12.000 is not luck for the world,

00:54:13.840 but it caused live streaming

00:54:16.600 and this form of entertainment

00:54:18.180 to just zoom in importance,

00:54:20.880 no pun intended.

00:54:22.720 And so,

00:54:23.400 I'm in the right place

00:54:24.340 at the right time,

00:54:25.660 but not by luck.

00:54:27.660 I engineered,

00:54:29.000 very consciously,

00:54:30.400 a move

00:54:30.980 from a sleepy world

00:54:32.820 of cartooning

00:54:33.700 to a dynamic,

00:54:35.620 visible world

00:54:36.520 where luck could find me.

00:54:38.380 And luck is finding me

00:54:40.020 all over the place.

00:54:41.220 So those are your tips.

00:54:43.360 Go where it's dynamic,

00:54:44.700 where luck can find you.

00:54:46.560 A, B, test continuously

00:54:48.140 to improvement.

00:54:49.960 Build your skill stack over time.

00:54:52.840 If you do those three things,

00:54:55.600 your odds of something good happening

00:54:57.580 in a few years,

00:54:59.160 you know,

00:54:59.400 not year one,

00:55:00.780 but in a few years,

00:55:02.440 is really good.

00:55:03.320 It's exactly the same process

00:55:05.280 I used for building Dilbert

00:55:06.900 and for other things

00:55:08.840 that have worked down.

00:55:10.080 So that is your tip for the day.

00:55:14.380 Somebody says in the comments,

00:55:15.960 lucky guy.

00:55:17.260 Definitely there's luck.

00:55:19.220 There is definite luck.

00:55:20.780 But I would say that anybody

00:55:22.320 who did what I did,

00:55:24.680 meaning pursuing the energy,

00:55:26.900 building a talent stack,

00:55:28.180 A, B, testing,

00:55:28.900 if you do those three things,

00:55:31.620 luck is going to find you.

00:55:34.200 And that is all for today.

00:55:36.160 I'll talk to you tomorrow.

00:55:37.060 Thank you.

00:55:38.240 Thanks for waiting for your opportunity.

00:55:43.440 Good morning.

00:55:44.440 Good morning,

00:55:45.640 everyone.

00:55:51.000 Good morning,

00:55:52.640 everyone.

00:55:55.920 Good morning.

00:55:56.100 Good morning,

00:55:56.600 everybody.

00:55:57.040 Good morning.

00:55:57.980 Good afternoon.

00:55:59.000 Good morning,

00:55:59.760 everybody.

00:56:00.380 Good morning.

00:56:00.780 Good morning.

00:56:00.820 Good morning,

00:56:01.840 everybody.

00:56:02.720 Good morning.

00:56:03.460 Good night.

00:56:03.820 I'm so happy for tonight.

00:56:05.320 Good night.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 29, 2020

Episode 1169 Scott Adams： GDP Zooms, Anonymous No More, Men Versus Women in Politics and Who Wins the Election

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript