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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript