Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1225 Scott Adams： All the Things China did to us This Year, Election Fake News

00:00:00.000 Bum, bum, bum, bum. Hey, everybody. Good to see you. Good morning. Come on in. Come on in. There's

00:00:08.500 plenty of seats. There's room. You made it on time, and congratulations. Those of you who are here at

00:00:15.880 exactly the appointed time, well, you're the self-starters. You're the ones who know that

00:00:21.580 life doesn't come to you. You've got to go to it. And if you'd like to maximize your experience,

00:00:28.340 and I know you do, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein,

00:00:32.320 a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:39.820 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:44.900 the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.

00:00:49.460 Ah, divine. Well, I don't want to get your hopes up, but this might be the best coffee with Scott

00:01:03.780 Adams. Thank you, Erica. And the reason it'll be the best is because we've got some good news

00:01:12.100 on coronavirus and such, and some fun news and some laughs. Oh, yeah, it'll be that good. Let's

00:01:19.120 start. Did you know that we have our first graduate from what I call the, well, a graduate with the

00:01:27.720 life strategy degree? Those of you who have been following me may have seen me talk about this.

00:01:33.700 It's the idea that you could create a book list, a list of books that if someone were to read them

00:01:40.000 in order, they could be said to have achieved a degree of sort. So I created such a list of books

00:01:47.520 that if you were to read all of these books, I would want to hire you. Now, of course, those are not

00:01:53.700 the only variables in the world, but if somebody told me they had read all of the books that I

00:01:59.140 recommended for a life strategy degree, that person's going to have a superpower. Literally, they will be

00:02:09.540 like walking gods among regular people if they have all those strategies. And so we have our first

00:02:17.000 graduate that I know of. There might be other people who read all the books that I recommended, but

00:02:20.960 Lyle Lula tells me on Twitter, he has read all of the books in the order in which I recommend it.

00:02:28.120 Now, in the comments, you're saying, hey, where is that book list? Where can I find that book list?

00:02:34.480 And you would, well, you would imagine, I know what you're thinking right now. He wouldn't bring this

00:02:40.420 topic up unless he could tell us where the link is to that list of books. But yeah, I would.

00:02:48.080 Sure I would. I'm way less organized than you think. I'm seeing in the comments that I put that on the

00:02:54.000 Locals platform. So you might have to go to Locals to get it. Locals.com and then look for my name

00:03:01.440 there. It's a subscription service. But the point is, you don't need to follow my list of books.

00:03:06.920 I would like to see other notable people, people you've heard of, people maybe that you have some

00:03:12.460 feeling of confidence in. I'd like to see Warren Buffett tell me the 15 books that if I were to

00:03:20.120 read them, he would say, well, you know, if you got a college degree and you read these 15 books,

00:03:25.800 I'd hire you. I'd like to see maybe Bill Gates. You know, your list will be different. But there's

00:03:33.060 some people I would trust, absolutely, to put together 15 books that would change your life.

00:03:38.920 All right, here are some predictions I made. Let's see how I did. And there should be enough of you who

00:03:45.460 have heard me make these predictions to confirm to the rest of you that I really said this stuff.

00:03:50.380 I told you that if Biden becomes president, the fake news would shift from mostly being on the left,

00:04:01.000 you know, CNN, to mostly being on the right, let's say Fox News. So and the reason for this is that if

00:04:09.980 the president in office is a Republican, then Fox News can say good things about what he did.

00:04:18.240 So they have plenty of content saying, oh, Trump did something good. Trump did something else good.

00:04:24.180 But the other team, the team that doesn't have, you know, their warrior in office,

00:04:29.700 doesn't have real accomplishments to talk about, because that's not what they want to talk about.

00:04:34.880 So instead, they have to invent fake news that becomes their content, because otherwise,

00:04:40.700 they don't have enough that their audience wants to look at. So it was predictable that the bulk of

00:04:47.340 fake news would go from certainly CNN, MSNBC, which is wall to wall fake news for four years,

00:04:53.560 and you're going to see a shift. Has that happened yet? Is my prediction correct? Well, here's what we

00:05:02.460 know. So Smartmatic, which has been under fire from a lot of people on the right, for their voting

00:05:11.280 system technology and alleged vulnerabilities. And they sent a blistering legal threat to Fox News,

00:05:20.620 which caused Fox News to create a package, as they say in the news business. A package is a video

00:05:29.300 segment that's recorded, and then they can play it in different times. And Fox News actually had to

00:05:36.020 build a package and run it on three separate shows saying that their own news was fake.

00:05:44.360 That actually happened. Now, I'm exaggerating, right? So Fox News never said our news is fake.

00:05:52.180 But what they did do is create a package in which they took the very claims that people had been

00:05:56.640 saying are likely true, such as Venezuelan connections, such as George Soros and stuff.

00:06:04.360 And apparently they did a point-by-point debunking of the claims from their own network.

00:06:12.520 And I think it ran on three separate shows, Judge Jeanine and I think Maria Bartiroma and Lou Dobbs

00:06:22.920 on Fox Business. So I would say that's fairly confirming that at least that news was fake news,

00:06:34.560 right? I mean, just objectively speaking, I know you, a lot of my viewers are right-leaning,

00:06:41.760 but objectively speaking, if you're just going to be objective, don't you see it? You see it, right?

00:06:48.680 Now, CNN and MSNBC are still going to have plenty of fake news, but I think just the emphasis will

00:06:55.020 start moving right. And then, you know, if things change, they'll go back. I also predicted that 95%

00:07:04.360 of election claims would be bogus. Election claims of fraud, for example, would be bogus,

00:07:12.120 regardless of whether there was fraud. So whether there, and of course it was a big election, so

00:07:19.580 there was some, it had to be. But would you say that's true? Given that Fox News just did a package

00:07:29.000 debunking their own news on fraud, I feel like that 95% estimate was pretty good. I feel like 95%

00:07:37.840 has been debunked. Now, if you're in the comments and you're saying, my God, no,

00:07:42.700 there's tons of stuff that hasn't been debunked, I would say to you, you probably haven't seen the

00:07:48.700 debunk. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You might not have seen it, because if you're watching mostly

00:07:54.660 right-leaning news, you wouldn't see it. You'd have to see it somewhere else. But I try to scan the

00:08:00.940 entire environment. I would say 95% has been debunked. Among those things I haven't seen debunked,

00:08:07.620 which doesn't mean they're true. But I haven't seen a debunked for some of the statistical claims.

00:08:16.100 Now, I've seen a debunked for the one in a quadrillion claim. That was somewhat easily debunked.

00:08:22.440 But the statistician who says that wherever there were Dominion and Hart voting machines,

00:08:31.560 there's a clear 5-ish percent bias toward Biden that doesn't make sense in any historical way.

00:08:40.900 I haven't seen that one debunked. So it only takes one to be true for the entire election not to be

00:08:49.480 valid, right? You only need one if it's big enough. And that one claim would be very much big enough. I

00:08:56.760 mean, it's way big enough. So you only need a few to be true. Doesn't matter that 95% are not.

00:09:06.720 So we've got some reporting that who knows, I assume this is fake news. I'm assuming that it's at least

00:09:13.820 fake-ish news. And it goes like this. That President Trump was met with and had considering

00:09:22.380 making Sidney Powell a special counsel to look into the voter fraud. Does that sound like it's true?

00:09:31.000 It might be. I don't think that it could possibly make a difference. Because won't Trump be out of

00:09:36.980 office, allegedly, in a few weeks? How much could a special counsel do in a lame duck one month?

00:09:45.940 Kind of nothing. So while I imagine it's true that the idea was floated. So that's probably true. I

00:09:54.520 think the idea was probably floated. But it looks like it won't happen maybe. And I think maybe it's

00:10:00.660 just not practical. Not enough time to make it work. Then it was also reported that the idea of

00:10:06.500 martial law was raised by General Flynn. Do you think that's true? I think that's probably true-ish.

00:10:14.300 Meaning that the way they talked about it, or the way they reported it might not be exactly the spin

00:10:20.920 that is accurate. But I would say that it makes perfect sense, because Flynn has mentioned this

00:10:26.240 outside of that context. But here's the part that I don't think the news will tell you.

00:10:32.120 Do you know that martial law has been used lots of times in the United States? Did you know that?

00:10:39.880 Probably not, right? Because when you think of martial law, you think of the whole country being

00:10:43.940 sort of locked down, and the military is in the streets, and all forms of civilian rule are

00:10:51.600 suspended and stuff. That's what you think of when you think of martial law, right? But apparently

00:10:56.260 martial law can be limited to whatever situation is the problem. So you don't need a martial law that

00:11:03.860 closes down the streets and adds the military instead of the public. You don't need any of that.

00:11:08.600 And the ones in the past were similarly limited. So it's a scary-sounding term,

00:11:15.260 but it's not a scary-sounding thing. It's not a scary technique. It's been used over 60 times,

00:11:23.280 I think, in American history. You've never even heard of them. I'll bet there's not one of you who

00:11:28.340 could, by memory, without searching for it. I'll bet not one of you could mention a specific case

00:11:36.680 of martial law, even though you've lived through a whole bunch of them, right? So how scary would it

00:11:45.800 be if there were martial law declared about the votes? Well, probably it would be limited to

00:11:50.880 something like, I'm just guessing, this is speculating, it would be limited to something like

00:11:55.500 using the military to secure the machines. That's it. That's it. Just using the military

00:12:03.580 to make sure that you're guarding the machines so you can do a proper audit. Now, I don't know if

00:12:08.340 that's exactly what Flynn had in mind, but it's an example of how limited martial law can be. I think

00:12:14.480 I have that right, if somebody wants to correct me on that. Please do.

00:12:18.360 How would you like to hear some coronavirus good news? This is all good news. Some of it is fake

00:12:29.040 news. Some of what I'm about to tell you almost certainly isn't true, but might be true. These

00:12:38.340 are things that might be true, and if they are, they'd be good news. So let me run it by you.

00:12:43.980 I had been asking provocatively why if hydroxychloroquine in combination with either zinc or

00:12:51.140 azithromycin or both, if it's so successful as a lot of retrospective studies say, but not a lot of

00:12:59.020 controlled, randomized studies say for some reason. I don't know why there aren't many of those. But

00:13:06.060 if it works as well as a lot of people say, but not the officials in control or the experts who

00:13:14.620 seem to have the consensus of things, wouldn't you see it working in at least one country?

00:13:21.220 So this was my question. By now, many months into the pandemic, surely there would be at least

00:13:28.220 one country that would say, we think there's enough here that we're just going to go wild with this.

00:13:34.420 Everybody's going to get it, and then you would see if it worked. It would be really obvious.

00:13:38.980 Let's say a perfect situation, France. This did not happen, but I imagine that it could have. Imagine 0.56

00:13:46.780 France said, you know, you're not all convinced about this hydroxychloroquine stuff, but we are.

00:13:52.800 So for one month, just one month, we're just going to give it to everybody, prophylactically

00:13:58.860 to the extent that we can. Then just see what France looks like compared to the rest of Europe.

00:14:03.660 That would tell you something. I mean, it's not a randomized controlled trial, but I feel like that

00:14:09.420 would be pretty important in terms of knowledge. But that didn't happen. However, I was told today that

00:14:15.240 there is a country that did that. So we're in good shape, right? Because there is a country that did

00:14:22.600 exactly that. The country is Andorra. You've all been there, right? Andorra is somewhere in Europe.

00:14:31.760 It's so tiny, it only has 77,300 people. It's so small that you have to add the 300. You know,

00:14:40.120 77,300, and I think the Wilsons just had a kid. That's 301 for Andorra. So basically,

00:14:49.420 the entire country, tiny country of Andorra is the size of a small town, or a small city,

00:14:55.480 let's say. And do you think that anything that happens there is representative? Do they have a

00:15:01.960 good record keeping? Are they spread out? Because there's only 77,300 in the whole country? They're

00:15:08.700 probably not too packed together, I'm thinking. I don't know anything about Andorra. But my only point

00:15:14.560 is, why did it have to be, if there had to be one country that did this experiment,

00:15:20.900 why did it have to be the one that doesn't give you good data? Is that a coincidence?

00:15:26.980 This is what makes me think the simulation is in effect. Because it seemed like there were a lot

00:15:33.080 of countries that could have tried this, that would have really been had credible record keeping,

00:15:39.720 let's say, a South Korea, a France, a Germany. But why was it the one place where the numbers are

00:15:47.020 small and it's so different that you just can't tell what you got? So I'll put this in the maybe

00:15:54.600 good news. Maybe good news. So we do have one country that used hydroxychloroquine and say they

00:16:01.920 got good results, and maybe that will move the needle, if it's true. There's a new hydroxychloroquine

00:16:08.160 study that, it's a retrospective, so it's not the gold standard kind with randomized controlled

00:16:14.300 trials. But there are now, somebody on Twitter was telling me there are 260 studies on hydroxychloroquine

00:16:21.500 that say it worked. I think almost all of them are retrospective, not the highest quality kind.

00:16:27.300 There might be, I don't know if there's a gold standard out there yet for hydroxychloroquine.

00:16:31.420 But apparently, so there's a new one today, but it's only 144 people that once again shows a big

00:16:39.960 difference if you use hydroxychloroquine. So does that mean hydroxychloroquine works? I'd say

00:16:47.980 that is not demonstrated yet. And it's annoyingly obtuse. I feel as though there should have been

00:16:58.600 some international hydroxychloroquine committee who would just be the ones who would decide if

00:17:08.380 these studies were good enough or not. What is the point of following the experts when there are 260

00:17:14.700 studies pointing in one direction and the experts point in the other direction? How do you process that

00:17:21.260 as a citizen who is not an expert? Do you process it as a, I feel like there's a massive global

00:17:28.660 conspiracy against hydroxychloroquine? Well, what would be the other explanation? With so many studies,

00:17:36.720 the other possibility is that there's something about the nature of a hydroxychloroquine's use

00:17:44.100 that makes all retrospective studies look like it works. But whatever, whatever it is that makes

00:17:50.680 it look like it work is sort of a phantom that, that affects all of them. So there could be one

00:17:55.780 factor that's not obvious. I don't know what it would be that does just affect all retrospective

00:18:01.120 studies. But when you do a randomized control study, it is scrubs that variable out. And so you don't get

00:18:08.500 the same results. Could it be that? Can somebody explain to me why so many retrospective studies

00:18:15.440 are in the same direction, but we're still not confirmed that it works? And by the way, I don't,

00:18:21.700 it's my, my best instinct on this is that it doesn't work. Because I think the signal would be so strong by

00:18:31.000 now, months into it, that there would be no doubt about it. You know, there wouldn't be anybody on the

00:18:36.100 other side, if it worked as well as claimed. Now, if it's true that this is some kind of massive global

00:18:43.120 pharma conspiracy to keep you from using ivermectin, which is another thing that has good press, but we

00:18:50.920 don't know if it's 100%. Maybe. If you told me that the big pharma companies were so powerful that they

00:19:00.080 had forced effectively, the top experts to say hydroxychloroquine and the other one are not the

00:19:08.320 big answer, I wouldn't rule that out. Because let's, let's game this out in our heads. Let's say that it

00:19:16.200 was true worst case scenario. All right, we'll just be conspiracy theorists for a moment. Let's say that

00:19:21.480 the big pharma companies thought that they wouldn't make enough money on vaccines or whatever,

00:19:26.460 therapeutics, if hydroxychloroquine did work, and they actually hired, you know, dark arts people

00:19:35.140 to set up a propaganda thing and, and maybe influence a few top doctors. How many doctors

00:19:42.600 would you have to bribe or influence? Let's say you're a pharma company. How many doctors would

00:19:49.240 you have to bribe or influence to make sure that you had controlled doctors in general? Because

00:19:56.020 you don't have to influence them all directly, right? You have to get the key doctors, the ones that

00:20:01.580 have the most credibility and the most reach. If you just influenced, I'll pick a number. If you,

00:20:10.920 if you, if you manipulated and influenced, let's say the 200 most influential epidemiologists and

00:20:19.640 medical professionals, would you have influenced them all? Somebody says 100. I feel like if you

00:20:27.580 influenced 200 medical scientific types who are the most credible in this area, you don't have to

00:20:35.800 influence the rest of them, I feel like. So is it doable? Could it actually be done? Do you think

00:20:43.100 that the pharma companies don't already have a major connection with the top 200 people in the field?

00:20:50.920 Think about it. Do you think the top 200 people don't already have pharmaceutical contracts?

00:21:00.560 Or at least they think they might work for them in the future? I feel as if that's not a high bar

00:21:07.120 for the pharma companies to influence 200 doctors that probably already have a relationship with

00:21:15.500 them. If they didn't already have a relationship, then that's a little extra work, right? But if you

00:21:21.040 already have a relationship and your pharma company that's paying you, I'll just pick an example.

00:21:27.200 Let's say your pharma company is arranging speaking deals for you. They're actually coming to you with

00:21:34.200 speaking offers and say, hey, there's a group we're working with. They'll pay you $20,000 to give a

00:21:40.360 speech. We'll fly you there and put you up in a first-class hotel. What do you say? And the doctor

00:21:47.140 says, really? I don't have to lie or anything. I'll just go and say what I want to say. And the pharma

00:21:53.120 company says, yeah, absolutely. Because we're your friend and we like you. We heard of this offer and we

00:22:00.040 thought you'd be perfect for it. Now, when that doctor who might be making, let's say $80,000 a year

00:22:08.020 extra because a pharma company is bringing him offers, does that person say something that puts

00:22:15.420 the pharma company against them? Kind of hard. So I don't think you can rule out a massive global

00:22:24.040 conspiracy because it would probably only have to affect 200 people that they already affect.

00:22:27.900 It might be. Here's the scary part. It might be really easy. I don't know that, but it might be.

00:22:36.380 I mean, common sense tells me a pharma company could get to 200 people that they already control

00:22:42.420 pretty easily. But I'm not going to say that's happening. I'm just saying that theoretically,

00:22:47.560 I don't see what would stop it. All right. Here's the fact that is going to make me lose my shit.

00:22:56.080 I'm going to keep it together today, but I'm going to tell you something that if this checks out 1.00

00:23:04.040 to be true, I'm going to lose my fucking shit. But I'll keep it together today. We'll give it a day 0.99

00:23:12.780 or so, let people weigh in, tell me if this is true or not, because it might be just not true,

00:23:18.060 or maybe there's a spin on it that I haven't thought of. But here's the fact that if this is true,

00:23:23.520 you're going to lose your fucking shit too. You ready? You really have to get, you need to be 1.00

00:23:29.880 prepared for this one. Be prepared. You're going to get mad. Okay. There's a Chinese study of 10

00:23:38.280 million, 10 million people who had coronavirus. 10 million. 10 million people. All right.

00:23:45.980 And of 10 million people, they tried to figure out what percentage of them got the COVID from

00:23:53.840 asymptomatic spreading. So we know that most of the spreading seems to be from people who have

00:23:59.220 symptoms. But the reason for the lockdowns is primarily the asymptomatic people, right? Because 1.00

00:24:07.600 if you only needed to stop the people who had symptoms, it'd be a little easier to just say,

00:24:12.340 hey, you have a symptom, don't come in the store. You have a symptom, you can't be in the restaurant.

00:24:18.460 Now, you wouldn't stop everybody. Some people would still come in with symptoms, but that's the

00:24:22.560 current case. That's the current situation. People still cheat a little bit. But the entire lockdown

00:24:30.260 thing, I think you could say, and again, fact check this, wouldn't you say that the entire lockdown

00:24:37.780 and even the mask situation has mostly to do with asymptomatic spread, because you don't know who

00:24:45.920 has it and who doesn't have it. So you got to do maximum control. True? So far, am I true? All right,

00:24:52.960 give me a fact check as I go. Because really, I don't want to lose it on this. But I'm right on the

00:24:58.560 edge. And I think you're going to be in a minute. So out of 10 million people that the Chinese checked,

00:25:04.760 so they do, you know, they check to see if as best they can, where they got it. And out of 10 million

00:25:12.060 people who got the coronavirus in China, how, what percentage of them, or even what number, you could

00:25:18.760 do number or percentage, what number of them were determined to have caught it from asymptomatic

00:25:25.300 spreading? Zero. Zero. And of 10 million. Zero. There's a new Journal of American Medical

00:25:42.200 Association, JAMA, whatever they are. They did a meta-analysis of 54 studies with 77,000 participants.

00:25:50.460 And they found that the odds of getting it, of an infected person infecting somebody in the home

00:25:59.300 is 18% if they're symptomatic. So if there's somebody in your home who has symptoms, there's

00:26:06.060 an 18% chance that at least one other person will get it in the household. Now, what are the odds,

00:26:13.840 according to these 54 studies, that someone in the household would get it if the only person

00:26:20.060 has it already is asymptomatic? 0.7%. Less than 1%. If you're symptomatic, 18. Now, who's right?

00:26:35.280 Is China right that the number is literally zero? Or is this a meta-analysis of 54 studies?

00:26:42.520 77,000 participants, so plenty of people. Are they right when they say it's 0.7? In other words,

00:26:50.580 less than 1%. I'm not sure it matters, does it? Because those are close enough that I don't believe

00:26:59.100 that they can collect data that would be more accurate than 1%, do you? Wouldn't you say that

00:27:04.560 you don't really know if you got it from the asymptomatic person or the symptomatic person?

00:27:09.560 If you know there was somebody coughing, you don't know you got it from that person. You could have

00:27:17.320 gotten it from the person you're sitting next to who doesn't have any symptoms. How would you really

00:27:21.340 know? So the first thing you have to add to this is, can you really do contact tracing? Is that a

00:27:29.200 thing? Now, it's obviously a thing because people do it, and the experts say it works. But is it a

00:27:36.900 thing where you can usually tell where you got it? Or is it a thing where you sort of just got a good

00:27:42.680 idea? Right? Because basically, you're asking the person, where have you been? Maybe sometimes you

00:27:48.180 can check it with digital stuff. But you're kind of relying on the least credible source, which is a

00:27:54.500 human saying, no, I think I saw somebody cough at the grocery store. I don't know. It seems to me

00:28:00.800 you can't accurately collect this data. Right? I feel like when you've got a number like the asymptomatic

00:28:08.080 spreading of 77,000 people was 0.7. That feels like total bullshit to me. Doesn't it? Like, because it 0.99

00:28:16.980 could be 5% or it could be zero. But it's, you know, it's going to be a pretty gross estimate. However, 10 million

00:28:25.360 Chinese and not one? Not one? Not one? Now, I don't believe that. Do you? Do you believe that in 0.99

00:28:33.720 of 10 million people, there were not a single asymptomatic spread? No. If you believe that,

00:28:40.580 you're an idiot. There's no way that that's true. It may be true that they recorded it that way and 1.00

00:28:45.960 that nobody had a story of anybody who was asymptomatic. But here's the thing. If this

00:28:55.700 checks out that we can be sure that asymptomatic spreading is well under 1%, everything we did with

00:29:04.300 masks and shutdowns was a waste of time. Now, if we didn't know this and we did all those things,

00:29:15.020 I give that a free pass. Remember, some of you remember that early on in the pandemic, I said

00:29:20.700 this. It's going to be fog of war and we're going to be asking our leaders to make life and death

00:29:27.380 decisions and they won't have the right information to make those life and death decisions. But we're

00:29:33.100 going to make them do it. It's their job. They've got to make a decision. Do something. You're the

00:29:38.720 leader, but you don't have any good information. If they get it wrong, is it their fault? I said in advance

00:29:47.780 we should give all of our leaders a pass for any mistakes during the coronavirus. Trump probably lost

00:29:54.980 his job. Trump probably lost his job by being right. In other words, Trump's, you know, let's say his

00:30:08.220 less emphasis on lockdowns and less emphasis on schools, schools being closed and less emphasis on

00:30:15.860 masks. Probably, if this asymptomatic study is right, Trump might have been right about everything.

00:30:30.320 At this sitting, you know, at this moment in time, there's a non-zero chance Trump was right about 0.99

00:30:40.220 fucking everything, including hydroxychloroquine. Now, I'm not saying that hydroxychloroquine works. I still 0.98

00:30:49.280 think it's likely it doesn't, or at least it doesn't work enough. But at this point, there is the bulk of

00:30:59.140 science, the great weight of current science. Fact check me on this. In my opinion, at this moment, the weight of

00:31:07.900 science is strongly on Trump's side. Fact check me. You tell me, you tell me that that's not true

00:31:17.380 as of today, given that the asymptomatic stuff... Now, we may learn that there is more asymptomatic

00:31:23.960 spreading than these two studies showed. But at current knowledge, current knowledge, just what we know

00:31:31.040 today, Trump was fucking right about everything. And he lost his job. He lost his job being right 0.97

00:31:40.840 about everything. That actually happened. I believe that happened. Now, we could find out that he wasn't

00:31:48.360 right about everything, because, you know, what we think is true just keeps changing. But that's a kick

00:31:53.600 in the nuts, I'll tell you. All right, here's some more. Apparently, here's a little conspiracy

00:32:02.720 theory for you. I don't know what to believe about this. I'll just pass it along, because it's a fun

00:32:06.760 story. But, you know, people have been complaining that the current tests for coronavirus were too

00:32:12.840 sensitive. Apparently, you can dial up the sensitivity or dial it down. And using the technical words,

00:32:20.880 it's, I don't know, the RCT or the cycles have to be, you know, under 25 or 30 or all that. So the

00:32:28.640 details don't matter. But apparently, the World Health Organization has just said that the tests

00:32:35.280 had been running at too high a sensitivity. And so, the conspiracy theory goes like this.

00:32:43.660 Did the World Health Organization not know, before vaccines were available, did they not know that

00:32:52.320 these tests were being set to be too sensitive? Meaning that they found a lot of people who had

00:32:57.720 apparently coronavirus, but they didn't. Meaning maybe they had some dead viruses in them from the

00:33:05.140 past, but they didn't have coronavirus, and they weren't symptomatic. But the World Health Organization

00:33:10.640 now says, oh, you've been testing too sensitive. So there's some potentially huge number of people

00:33:16.960 who did not have coronavirus in a way that they could spread it anyway, who were diagnosed as having

00:33:22.900 it. Is it a coincidence that they revised their thinking so that the vaccines will look really,

00:33:32.020 really effective? Because it's a coincidence. I mean, it could be just that this is the normal

00:33:39.580 timing of things. But the conspiracy theory is around, you knew this before, the vaccines.

00:33:46.860 Why are you only telling us after the vaccines? Is that a coincidence? It might be.

00:33:57.760 Now, suppose that this is true, and that while the virus is real, you know, it's a real virus,

00:34:05.420 it's really killing people. But the degree of how many people are affected was completely fraudulent

00:34:12.120 because the tests were set in the wrong way. Is that possible? Well, the World Health Organization

00:34:18.420 is indicating it is, that a lot of people are setting the tests too high. Do you know what that

00:34:23.740 means? It means Trump is fucking right again. That the reason there are so many apparent infections 0.99

00:34:32.260 is because of the testing. And maybe not exactly the way he said it, but it would mean that we had

00:34:40.480 over-tested too sensitively and artificially shown numbers too high. I'm not going to give Trump an A

00:34:50.420 plus on that, but his instinct that testing was misleading us, he might have been right.

00:34:57.960 All right, here's another example where my complete lack of embarrassment comes in useful. And I talk

00:35:06.940 about this as a superpower, something I've learned over the years. It's not something you're born with

00:35:11.600 because we're born with an ability to be embarrassed quite easily. You have to really work to make it not

00:35:18.760 bother you and not be a thing in your life. But at this point, I would say I can report that I don't

00:35:24.060 really get embarrassed. I just don't. And it really works well. Here's an example. So in a recent

00:35:32.440 live stream, I made a completely inaccurate statement that our air conditioning systems

00:35:39.520 do not use this UV light, the special far UV that we know kills the virus. There might be some other

00:35:47.080 kind of UV light in some units, but basically it's not a thing. Turns out it's a thing. Turns out I'm

00:35:55.000 completely wrong. So let me, so everything you heard me say, and again, here's where my lack of

00:36:01.120 embarrassment comes in handy. One of the ways you can attract right information and help is by doing

00:36:07.500 something wrong in public. I do this a lot and it works really well. When I do things wrong in public,

00:36:14.240 there's no cost to me because I don't have embarrassment. But the effect is that all the

00:36:20.620 people who know I did something stupid, they flow in and say, oh, let me correct you. Here's the link. 0.99

00:36:27.400 Here's some knowledge you didn't know. And then I share it with you. So we're all going to get smarter

00:36:32.940 because I have lack of embarrassment. You see how this works? My lack of embarrassment will now educate

00:36:40.180 you because it caused people to flow in and correct me. So Christian Holler tells me this.

00:36:47.900 I'll just read what he said because he said it well. He said, he was surprised about my comments

00:36:52.500 about UV systems not having that. He said, this is incorrect. All that we have checked. So he's

00:36:58.320 involved in this industry. He says, all that we have checked use UVC, which is the correct term for far

00:37:05.860 UVC. So I think one of my problems was that I didn't recognize that UVC is synonymous with far UV.

00:37:13.760 So I think that was part of the reason I thought it wasn't the same light. And then there was some

00:37:18.000 Duke study that said that says that many of the commercial and residential systems have this two UVC

00:37:25.860 devices on them and that you would see them in purifiers for hospitals and stethoscopes, sterilizers,

00:37:32.160 and there are vendors testing it. And it's a big thing. And there are a few different technologies.

00:37:39.420 So it's not just the UVC light, but there's also some kind of a hydrogen peroxide and O3,

00:37:47.740 but it's not legal in California because of ozone or whatever. So there are a few different technologies,

00:37:53.500 but here's the problem. They're expensive. So they're not going to be in your house.

00:38:00.140 So they're expensive. You can put them in a big system in a hospital, but maybe too expensive for your house.

00:38:08.060 Here's what I'd like to know. Do we have enough data yet that we can determine that the locations

00:38:14.640 that have this technology have less spread than the places that don't? Now, you won't be able to check

00:38:22.860 households, but it looks like at this point you could check maybe a hospital. You could probably check

00:38:27.960 a senior home. You could check any facility that has one of these and say, how do they compare to

00:38:34.100 the ones that don't have them? So this again is something that I feel like if nobody's working on

00:38:40.220 finding out that, if you can tell the difference, the places that have it versus that don't,

00:38:46.180 that's a big, big deal, isn't it? Like a big, big, big, big deal if it works. Because if it works,

00:38:53.420 that means it's just a case of money. Now, what Christian said when he was correcting me, he said

00:39:02.640 that I believe that they've had this technology in his home and they haven't had, we no longer get

00:39:12.560 colds. It's been 10 years now. So his family has been 10 years without a cold. I don't know how that

00:39:20.660 works if you ever leave the house, but good for them. Apparently, we have learned that China employed 1.00

00:39:27.220 a vast army of propaganda people to manage the coronavirus messaging. When it became clear that

00:39:35.660 it came out of China, China said, oh, we got a PR problem. And they mobilized, apparently, an enormous

00:39:41.400 army of people to manage the message. And some of the words that they did not want to be in headlines

00:39:49.160 were these, incurable, fatal, and lockdown about travel articles. So the Chinese presumably were 0.92

00:39:59.800 managing even our press. I don't know how directly or how much they could do it, but it was their job

00:40:07.500 to manage the press in the world. So one assumes that they were at least trying to influence our local

00:40:13.820 press. And I don't remember seeing a lot of the word incurable and fatal, but we did lose lockdown

00:40:22.640 a lot, at least on social media. So I don't know how much effect they have. But here's the question I

00:40:27.220 have. Our media reported nonstop, the fake news media, not the real news, but the fake news reported

00:40:35.780 that President Trump had recommended drinking bleach. Anderson Cooper and CNN, that they actually

00:40:43.240 reported with those words, the actual words, drinking bleach. Now, I have a question for you.

00:40:50.880 How do we know that didn't come from Chinese influence? Is it possible that China, when they heard that

00:40:58.940 people were saying, you know, the president suggested drinking bleach, would the Chinese propaganda people 0.96

00:41:05.860 say, whoa, what did we just hear? What did we just hear? Let's amplify this one. Is it possible that the

00:41:14.320 reason half of the people in the United States literally believe that the president once speculated

00:41:19.940 about drinking bleach to cure coronavirus, as if that actually happened, is that because of China?

00:41:26.620 I don't know. But don't you have to ask the question at this point? If we know that they were

00:41:32.700 influencing our understanding of the coronavirus, and we know they didn't like Trump, and we know

00:41:38.960 that that's not true, that he said anything about drinking bleach, did it come from China? Or did they

00:41:45.660 at least push it? I think it probably happened naturally, in terms of the story, but I'll bet they

00:41:50.920 pushed it a little. So as you know, Pompeo has said that our big hack that got into all of our systems

00:42:00.080 in the United States, you know that story, the solar wind hack, he says that it's, quote, pretty clearly

00:42:06.100 Russia behind it. Pretty clearly it's Russia. But President Trump has speculated now in public that

00:42:12.800 maybe it was China. Are these two statements in conflict? Is there any conflict to say that it's

00:42:20.900 pretty clearly Russia, where Trump says maybe it's China? Well, they're not exactly conflicting, but

00:42:28.780 they're not really compatible either. It would be better if the message had been, you know, cleanly

00:42:35.980 one or the other or some hybrid. But it's not exactly contradicting it. Because you could be

00:42:43.320 pretty sure that it was Russia, and then later find out it was actually China. So I don't think

00:42:50.040 Trump is wrong about that. And his instincts on stuff are shockingly good in a lot of ways,

00:42:57.680 wouldn't you say? You make all the criticisms you want about Trump and, you know, his tweets and

00:43:03.640 whatever. But I don't think at this point, you can really question his instincts. I feel like he

00:43:10.260 proved that. I feel like he proved his instincts are good. And here's my instinct about that hack.

00:43:19.040 I don't feel like Russia would have been very smart to be behind it. Given all of the attention on 0.98

00:43:27.040 Russia, and specifically this exact problem, you know, especially if it got into the election stuff,

00:43:33.640 I feel like it could have been Russia. Clearly it could have been Russia. You know, you can't say

00:43:43.180 that's a low likelihood. It clearly could have been Russia. But doesn't Trump want, doesn't China want

00:43:51.880 Trump out of office more than Russia? That would be the common thinking, right? I don't know. I think

00:43:58.680 that Trump just assumes China would be more of a malign influence than Russia at the moment.

00:44:05.480 He could be completely wrong, but I don't think he can rule it out. I'd say maybe.

00:44:13.700 How about Biden is using what I would call the pointy-haired boss technique? Now, in Dilbert,

00:44:21.980 the comic, I write about corporate strategies for getting ahead at the expense of other people

00:44:28.800 and stockholders. And there's something I'd call the pointy-haired boss technique. Now, that's a general

00:44:35.980 term, but this fits under it. So what we're going to watch is that during the context of the vaccines

00:44:44.600 being rolled out, Joe Biden needs to do something artificial that he can later claim was the real

00:44:52.500 reason the virus was conquered. Because the vaccinations will take care of the virus.

00:44:58.660 Don't you all think that? I mean, I think everybody agrees that at some point, I don't know how long

00:45:04.300 it'll take, but at some point, the vaccinations will actually eradicate the virus. Could happen maybe by

00:45:10.660 June. But it's definitely going to happen during the alleged potential Biden administration.

00:45:17.260 So Biden has to do the pointy-haired boss technique. He has to do something that doesn't

00:45:22.860 have anything to do with vaccinations, while he's also working on the vaccinations. Because the

00:45:27.100 vaccinations are sort of a Trump success. And he needs to say that he did something else that was

00:45:33.580 really important to the success. So if he pushes masks and lockdowns, and let's say he gets some

00:45:40.000 action there, after the vaccinations cure the problem, he will be able to look the public in

00:45:46.560 the eye and say, thank goodness we had that lockdown. It made all the difference. Thank goodness

00:45:53.500 I was tough on wearing masks. It might be that none of that makes a difference. As long as you control

00:46:02.120 the symptomatic people, maybe it doesn't make a difference. But that's a really good play. So from 0.88

00:46:07.820 the perspective of is it smart? Yeah, it's really smart. So what Biden should do to create the false

00:46:15.400 impression that he solved the pandemic is anything. Just do anything. And then say that's the thing

00:46:21.440 that mattered. You know, of course, he'll say the vaccinations also mattered, but he'll be able to

00:46:25.380 claim some credit. So in New York City, there's a private school called the Dalton School. And they

00:46:32.340 have made a bunch of proposals for, I guess this is a response to the George Floyd situation.

00:46:39.920 So they made a bunch of proposals about making the school more, let's say, less systemic racist,

00:46:48.820 I guess. And so I want to give you my impression of, I'm guessing, there might have been some white

00:46:56.700 people on the committee. And I will play the part of an average white person on the committee when the

00:47:03.980 committee is making the following proposals and we're discussing them. And the first proposal is

00:47:09.980 I've got an idea. We'd like to assign a staffer who will be dedicated to helping black students who are

00:47:20.120 having some trouble or complaints in what is a predominantly white institution. Does anybody have

00:47:27.360 a problem with having a one assigned staffer who's just there as a resource to help our black students

00:47:34.680 who might feel a little and a place or might need a little advice? Everybody, let's go around the

00:47:40.640 table. Scott, Scott, what do you think of that? Just one staffer who's sort of a resource for our black

00:47:46.100 students. What do you think? I'd say, oh, it's not bad. You know, we don't know if that's going to

00:47:51.340 make a difference, but it's not much of a expense. I would say that's a strong proposal. Yeah, I'm good

00:47:58.120 with that. I say yes. So yes on idea one, having somebody who's a resource. Idea two, we want to hire

00:48:07.680 12 full-time diversity officers and multiple psychologists to support students who are, quote,

00:48:14.640 coping with race-based traumatic stress. 12. I don't know how big the school is, but it feels like

00:48:23.880 a lot. So let's go around the table. What do you say? Scott, what do you think about this? Well, I like,

00:48:30.720 you know, I like the concept. Concept's okay, you know, directionally. But 12? Do we need 12 of

00:48:39.580 these plus some psychologists? Whoa, Scott. Oh, we invited you on this committee hoping you would try

00:48:50.300 to be helpful. We didn't expect you to go full Hiller in the first meeting. I say, I'm not really

00:48:57.780 even much objecting to the idea. I'm just saying that maybe 12 is a big number plus the psychology.

00:49:05.740 I'm just saying, I'm just talking about the number of them. I'm not even really pushing back on the

00:49:11.180 concept so much. Yeah, that's pretty much how racists act. Good try. Good try trying to pull it back now

00:49:21.640 because it's out. I mean, you've said it. Let's move on to the next thing, racist.

00:49:27.300 Next proposal is we want to compensate any student of color who appears in Dalton promotional materials.

00:49:37.900 Let's go around the table. Scott, what do you think of that? I'm not sure I understand this. Are you

00:49:42.620 saying that if a white student is in our promotional materials, they won't get paid? But a person of

00:49:49.420 color, if they're doing exactly the same work, that they would get paid? Am I hearing this right?

00:49:56.580 Yeah, that's the idea. That's exactly the idea. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with this one. I

00:50:07.400 like, I sort of like where you're going with the other ones, but I'm now feeling a little bit

00:50:13.840 uncomfortable. Get the fuck out of here, you fucking racist. You racist, Hitler, get out of here. You are 1.00

00:50:21.360 off the committee. Scene. Imagine, if you will, literally, some white person trying to push back

00:50:32.220 on any of this bullshit. Now, when I call it bullshit, there's actually some good stuff in 1.00

00:50:36.700 here. Some of it is completely well-meaning, and I look at it and go, oh, yeah, it would be. It looks 0.98

00:50:42.640 like a good idea to have a dedicated staffer, you know, somebody that you go to. But look at some of

00:50:48.140 these other ideas. Requiring anti-racism statements from all staffers. So every staffer will be forced

00:50:58.960 to say what they're told to say. Seem good in America? About abolishing high-level academic courses

00:51:11.500 by 2023 if the performance of black students is not on par with non-blacks. So they'll just stop 1.00

00:51:19.040 being a school if black people don't perform well. How about this one? They'll donate 50 percent of all 0.99

00:51:25.380 their fundraising to New York City public schools if Dalton is not representative of the city in terms

00:51:32.920 of gender, race, and socioeconomic background and immigration status by 2025. So they're saying that

00:51:40.960 all the private citizens who are donating to the schools, because usually they either went to the

00:51:46.720 school or their kid is there, so they will take those donations that are meant for the children's

00:51:51.860 school, and they'll take half of them and give it away to something else that people did not want to

00:51:58.320 donate to, and is in fact funded by the government, if they don't match the demographic profile of the

00:52:05.240 city. Some of the worst ideas I've ever seen in my life. These are really some of the worst ideas I've

00:52:12.880 ever seen, and there's a whole list of these, and every one is worse than the one before, but we have

00:52:18.740 reached a point where you cannot show your opinion in public. It's quite obvious, it's really obvious,

00:52:28.240 that the reason you get this Dalton school thing is that there was nobody at the school who could tell

00:52:34.940 you their real opinion. Nobody. There was not a single white person involved in that who had any power

00:52:43.000 or had the ability to simply disagree and say, you know, I think this makes things worse. None.

00:52:50.320 Free speech at the, you know, at the, in the company level. It used to be when I, when I was in the

00:52:57.560 corporate world, the most basic thing was you don't criticize when you're brainstorming, you know, so

00:53:04.860 that part's good. But you could pretty much say anything you wanted. If you believed it and it was

00:53:10.240 true and, you know, you could back it up. You were free to say that a bad idea was bad, but you're not

00:53:15.680 able to do that anymore. You actually can't say a bad idea is bad in a meeting in which you've been

00:53:21.140 asked to give your opinion on the idea. You just can't do it anymore. If it's this topic anyway.

00:53:28.160 And, all right. No free speech, no freedom. That's true.

00:53:37.100 Sums up today's curriculum. This is my show for today. I think I hit everything that I wanted to do.

00:53:42.780 Got you plenty. That's all you want.

00:53:44.600 Oh, um, yeah, that's all. All right. Here is the payoff. Let's go to the whiteboard. Are you ready?

00:53:54.260 I want to teach you how to know what is true and what is not true, at least in the terms of

00:53:59.700 the things that are in the political news. And here's an approach I would like to promote.

00:54:07.440 And it goes like this. You should create your own list, and I'll give you my starter list,

00:54:13.920 of what I call high-value thinkers. Now, I don't want to call them like the intellectual dark web. I

00:54:21.380 don't want it to be a club. So it's not a fraternity. It's not a club. It's not some group that's a fixed

00:54:27.460 group. But rather, it's in my experience and opinion, a number of people, I'm just using Twitter

00:54:33.440 as my field here, my canvas, a number of people who I would say are unusually credible and also

00:54:42.980 well-informed. So you would have to be credible and well-informed. What makes you credible? The only

00:54:50.400 thing that makes you credible is that you have a history of sometimes taking the opposite opinion.

00:54:57.660 In other words, if you're associated with the left or the right, have you ever, even once,

00:55:04.080 agreed with the other side in public? All right. Now, this list is not complete. I literally ran in a

00:55:11.160 room. And so if you see somebody who belongs on the list and isn't here, I see a lot of people

00:55:17.280 saying, where's Ben Shapiro on the list? And maybe he belongs on the list. Cheryl Atkinson is on the

00:55:23.880 list. I see you suggesting that. So it's not complete. You can add other people. But let me just run

00:55:30.000 through these to tell you what it is that makes this group special and why I think they're high-value

00:55:36.540 thinkers. And why, if you're trying to decide if something in the news is true or not, these are

00:55:43.520 the people to go to. All right. But then there's going to be a second part of this that will be on

00:55:47.300 the other side. So, for example, you've seen Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley know everything there is to

00:55:53.820 know about the law, it seems, anyway. Both of them are capable of supporting something on the left or

00:56:00.340 something on the right. They do it all the time. And they're really smart and they usually are really

00:56:06.800 good. Oh, Robert Barnes. I would put Robert Barnes on there as well. So there are a number of names

00:56:12.020 that do belong on here. I was just trying to give you a starter list. Cernovich, you can guarantee

00:56:19.720 that Cernovich is giving you an actual opinion, not a, you know, political, I'm on a team kind of

00:56:26.780 opinion because he does it all the time. Now, are all the people on this list right about stuff?

00:56:34.560 No. You'll see some people on this list who are famous for getting stuff wrong,

00:56:40.300 but they don't get most things wrong. You can still get something wrong no matter how smart you are.

00:56:45.900 Oh, I did have Ben Shapiro on the list. I forgot. So the people on the left are people who have

00:56:50.740 experience in the law or law enforcement in the case of Bungino. So if you have anything that

00:56:56.760 has a legal element to it, this is a good list of people. Andres Backhouse, I use him as my go-to

00:57:06.020 for anything data or logic or economic related. He's just an extraordinary source. I don't even know

00:57:14.300 if he's left or right, which is amazing. Imagine interacting with somebody on a regular basis about

00:57:20.560 politics and you don't know what their opinion is, left or right. That's like a home run, right? If you can pull

00:57:27.940 that off, interact on politics extensively, and when you're done, people go, I don't even know, does he lean

00:57:34.740 conservative? I can't even tell. That's good, right? So Andres Backhouse, Molly Hemingway, I put on the list just as

00:57:45.480 one of the clearest thinkers with the best, you know, full historical understanding of issues and

00:57:52.260 politics, et cetera. Dana Perino, you can see her on both sides of issues all the time. You would never 1.00

00:57:59.100 expect her to say anything that she knew to be untrue. It just wouldn't happen. But you do see lots of

00:58:05.680 pundits say things that you think, I think even they know that's not true. But you would never get that

00:58:11.280 of the people on this list. Glenn Greenwald, tremendous voice, different look on a lot of

00:58:20.340 things. Matt Taibbi, associated with the left, but he's willing to cross over. I put Smirconish on

00:58:26.440 there from CNN. Smirconish, I'm going to keep giving him props for being non-political on a political

00:58:35.240 show. Again, he is so fair-minded that he really stands out on CNN. He's actually quite special that

00:58:42.700 way. Greg Goffeld, you'll see him follow the data and the issues wherever they go. Dr. Jew for medical

00:58:49.560 stuff, if I've got a nuclear energy question, Mark Schneider, if it's anything about climate change or

00:58:57.380 the environment. Michael Schellenberger and then Cheryl Atkinson, a great political investigative

00:59:04.980 voice. So anybody on that list would be strong. But since not all of them are right all the time,

00:59:12.380 here's the second part. You want to triangulate. I'll use that word. Pick three people from your list.

00:59:21.400 And here's just an example. So if there's a specific topic, and let's say you pick three

00:59:28.580 people and they all agree. You've got a Mike Cernovich, he says, yeah, that's true. You've got

00:59:33.100 a Molly Hemingway, she says, yeah, that's true. And you've got Andres Backhaus who says, yeah, the data

00:59:40.160 looks right. The economic argument looks right. If these three people say something's true,

00:59:45.660 bet on it. Bet on it. And you could replace any of these three people with the correct choices from

00:59:56.120 the other side of the board. So it doesn't have to be these three. These are just three examples.

01:00:00.560 If it were a legal question, you'd want Dershowitz to be in one of these boxes. If it's an environmental

01:00:07.400 question, you want Mike Schellenberger to be in one of these boxes. So this is the technique. And

01:00:13.380 I'm seeing a lot of suggestions of people I definitely do not believe belong on the list.

01:00:20.860 I don't want to call out the ones that I think don't belong on the list.

01:00:26.700 Because I don't need to be insulting anybody. But there are definitely some suggestions you made

01:00:31.100 that I wouldn't get anywhere near this list. And the reason is that they have a history of being,

01:00:37.520 taking a political side, even if the data doesn't quite support it.

01:00:42.480 So that's sort of my tell for somebody who's not going to be a credible person. Now, let's say you

01:00:48.900 picked your three people and any two of them said, yeah, that's true. But one says it's not. Well,

01:00:54.880 if the one who says it's not is the subject matter expert, maybe you would weigh that. But if they're

01:00:59.980 all, say, equally qualified for whatever this question is, two out of three probably tells you it's

01:01:06.760 likely, but not guaranteed. So I think that would be meaningful. You don't need to have three out of

01:01:12.560 three, but three out of three is better. All right. Somebody says Rush is always right. So actually,

01:01:20.160 let me use Rush Limbaugh as an example of somebody who's tremendously knowledgeable and, you know,

01:01:26.660 qualified in lots of ways. But he does a political entertainment show.

01:01:31.240 So he does take a side. He does a great job of defending his side. But he's really about a side.

01:01:39.720 Right? So he would not be on my list, even though he's tremendous for the specific thing he tells you

01:01:47.540 he's doing, which is entertainment. He does that really well. All right. So here's the technique.

01:01:55.600 Look for people who can be on both sides of an issue. Let me take just one example. Mark Levin. I saw

01:02:03.740 that name go by. Mark Levin, super smart in the law and in politics. So if you want somebody who knows

01:02:12.680 the topic, Mark Levin would be great. But ask yourself this. Have you seen him take a Democrat

01:02:20.080 side of anything? Personally, I haven't. If I had, he'd be on the list. If you've seen him take

01:02:27.580 the other side of an issue ever, then you should put him on your list. I just haven't personally seen

01:02:33.800 it. So I don't have that assurance yet. So he's not on my list. So the importance of this is this.

01:02:39.800 We live in a world of super fake news. Can't trust the network news. Can't trust your favorite news

01:02:46.380 source. Can't trust anything you see on social media in isolation. So if you're trying to creep

01:02:52.740 toward the truth, I recommend this system. Get yourself a list of credible people. Pick any three

01:02:59.440 of them that make sense for the topic. And make sure that those three people are on the same side.

01:03:04.340 Otherwise, some uncertainty would be in order. All right. That's all for today. I will talk to you

01:03:11.100 tomorrow. All right. There's your lesson for the day. I like all the suggestions that people are

01:03:23.800 making on different people to add to that. You know, I didn't put any straight news people on there.

01:03:29.920 If I had, I would have put, well, there are a number of straight news people that you could put

01:03:35.580 there. But the straight news people, I feel like they've already told you what they know. So you

01:03:44.640 don't need to, you know, go beyond that. All right. That's all we got for today. And I will talk to you

01:03:56.980 tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 20, 2020

Episode 1225 Scott Adams： All the Things China did to us This Year, Election Fake News

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript