Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1370 Scott Adams： Elon on SNL, CNN as a Narcissist, Climate Data Versus Headlines, and More

00:00:00.000 Oh, let me take my pieces of paper, which I don't have, and do this.

00:00:08.580 Oh, yes, I only have two printers in this house, so that's not enough to actually print things.

00:00:14.180 You need, I don't know, five to seven printers before you can be sure that one of them will actually have paper and ink and work and all that.

00:00:25.240 So, I'll be working off a digital device today.

00:00:28.860 And I think it will be the best live stream ever of Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:38.620 And I know, I've said it before, but it's true every time. 0.79

00:00:41.560 And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or gels or stein, a canteen, a jug or flask or a vessel of any kind.

00:00:47.180 Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:50.500 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine to the day, the thing that makes everything better.

00:00:56.780 It's called the Simultaneous Sip, and it happens now. Go.

00:01:05.240 Ah.

00:01:05.760 Well, well, well, well, well.

00:01:09.780 Well, bad news about the Chinese rocket that was going to hurl into the Earth out of orbit.

00:01:17.200 I was really, really hoping that rocket would fall on my head and kill me, because there is no better way to die.

00:01:25.660 And I'm ready.

00:01:26.320 But apparently I will have to die in one of the million other ways you can die that are not anywhere as fast or as painless or as cool as being killed by the debris of a Chinese rocket falling to Earth. 0.97

00:01:42.440 And I guess that was my one chance, and I missed that.

00:01:46.800 So I'm a little disappointed about that.

00:01:50.340 Did you know that Starbucks is considering removing a Starbucks page from Facebook?

00:01:57.160 Do you know why?

00:01:58.300 Why would Starbucks want to remove its page from Facebook if you don't know this story?

00:02:06.620 Just try to guess.

00:02:08.220 Like, what possible thing could Facebook have done or Starbucks have done if you don't know the story?

00:02:15.940 What would cause them to want to leave Facebook, maybe?

00:02:19.640 They haven't decided, but they might do it.

00:02:21.340 Well, it turns out that Facebook isn't woke enough.

00:02:27.820 Not woke enough.

00:02:29.660 Apparently people say mean things about Starbucks in the comments.

00:02:33.940 And Starbucks is just trying to be a good citizen.

00:02:37.220 And people say bad things about them on Facebook.

00:02:41.420 And so Facebook isn't woke enough for Starbucks and they might leave.

00:02:45.160 Now, have I told you that the left is eating itself?

00:02:53.700 Oh, yeah.

00:02:54.800 Now that they've gotten rid of all the easy targets on the right,

00:02:58.520 if you're on the left and you're trying to pick off targets on the right,

00:03:03.840 when you get down to people like me, like I'm not even on the right,

00:03:08.120 you know, I just talk to the right a lot,

00:03:10.360 you've kind of run out of easy targets.

00:03:12.600 I'm a little bit more uncancellable than most people.

00:03:18.440 So I think they just turn on each other

00:03:21.220 because I don't think you can turn the wokeness off.

00:03:24.680 There's no off switch on wokeness.

00:03:27.220 So once you've opened up the wokeness Pandora's box, 0.98

00:03:32.220 it's going to get you.

00:03:34.040 So here's another example of that.

00:03:37.860 Well, how many of you watch Elon Musk hosting Saturday Night Live?

00:03:42.600 Let me, I have lots of comments about that.

00:03:46.820 I just watched it this morning, recorded it.

00:03:49.840 And the following comments.

00:03:53.100 Miley Cyrus, who is the musical guest.

00:03:56.600 Miley Cyrus is one of the most underrated musical artists around, in my opinion.

00:04:02.420 I think she's just insanely talented, 0.98

00:04:04.800 and I could not enjoy watching her more.

00:04:08.940 But I think she got sort of, you know,

00:04:13.620 she was sort of shaded by the fact that Elon was the host.

00:04:17.340 But man, is she talented. 1.00

00:04:19.580 All right, anyway.

00:04:20.160 Anyway, I thought Elon, Elon's, his monologue was the best I've seen.

00:04:29.740 The best I've seen.

00:04:32.160 Now, how funny is it that the, I mean, how long have I watched Saturday Night Live?

00:04:37.980 My whole life that it was on, right?

00:04:40.980 30 years-ish?

00:04:42.840 How many years has Saturday Night Live been on?

00:04:44.680 In my opinion, Elon was the most interesting and funny host that they've ever had,

00:04:52.900 that I can remember.

00:04:53.920 I can't remember anybody who was funnier or more capable in that job.

00:04:58.260 And the funny thing was, he didn't even look nervous.

00:05:02.400 45 years, somebody says, for Saturday Night Live.

00:05:05.080 Wow.

00:05:05.980 45 years.

00:05:07.300 Yeah, Elon didn't even look nervous.

00:05:08.900 He looked like he was handling it pretty easily.

00:05:11.180 And I thought his jokes were great.

00:05:14.300 And I thought his delivery was great.

00:05:17.120 And I think he made Saturday Night Live relevant again.

00:05:22.160 So by getting outside their box and getting somebody who was, you know,

00:05:26.500 way more interesting but not in the entertainment field,

00:05:29.320 I think they did themselves a favor.

00:05:32.040 And I think he did a lot for the show.

00:05:34.220 Now, remember I told you it was probably fake news

00:05:36.780 that the staff of Saturday Night Live was going to rebel.

00:05:43.160 Did you see any rebelling?

00:05:45.920 No.

00:05:47.040 No.

00:05:47.820 It was always fake news.

00:05:50.120 Probably nobody had any problem with him whatsoever.

00:05:53.980 And I'll bet they all enjoyed it, the experience.

00:05:57.100 That was never even close to real news.

00:05:59.320 If you didn't know that from moment one, that that was fake news,

00:06:03.360 you need to tune your filter.

00:06:06.780 And the other big news is he dropped, I don't know,

00:06:11.000 is this his surprise, that Elon Musk said on TV,

00:06:15.420 and I don't know that he's ever said it before in public,

00:06:18.520 that he is Asperger's.

00:06:20.820 Now, in the comments, how many of you didn't already know that?

00:06:26.640 Is there anybody who didn't know that Elon Musk,

00:06:29.900 just by watching him operate,

00:06:33.020 didn't you know he was a little bit Asperger's?

00:06:35.520 You knew, right?

00:06:37.280 I'm looking at your comments.

00:06:39.440 Somebody said, I knew, I assumed, I knew it, called it, knew, I knew.

00:06:44.760 Some of you saying, no, no, no, no.

00:06:48.000 Yeah.

00:06:48.740 So here's the thing.

00:06:49.820 If you've been around enough Asperger's people, 1.00

00:06:53.340 and nobody's been around more than I have,

00:06:55.640 I make the following claim.

00:06:57.340 My claim is that I have interacted with more Asperger's people

00:07:02.160 than anybody on earth.

00:07:04.080 It's because I'm the Dilber guy.

00:07:06.060 So, you know, some gigantic portion of my total audience is Asperger's.

00:07:11.580 So I probably know that population better than,

00:07:14.840 better than anybody who's not a professional, I guess.

00:07:17.760 I have just amazing amount of interaction with that group.

00:07:22.340 And I'm very fond of the, fond of that group in particular.

00:07:26.780 So it's good to hear.

00:07:28.280 And the funny thing is,

00:07:30.660 that's just a little thing that Elon Musk did, right?

00:07:34.060 If you looked at the whole Saturday Night Live thing,

00:07:36.340 you'd say, well, you know, he did a lot of stuff we can talk about.

00:07:39.560 But that one thing he did,

00:07:42.780 just that one thing where he said he was Asperger's,

00:07:46.040 how many people with Asperger's around the world just said,

00:07:51.020 yes, one of our people is the richest guy in the world

00:07:54.920 and, you know, arguably one of the most successful of all time.

00:07:59.460 And that's got to feel pretty good.

00:08:03.360 Somebody says, I cheered.

00:08:05.520 Did you cheer because you're Asperger's?

00:08:07.300 How many of you right now are Aspies?

00:08:12.320 In the comments, tell me how many of you are,

00:08:16.060 consider yourself, or have been diagnosed as Asperger's.

00:08:19.800 I'll be interested to see.

00:08:21.320 I'm not sure if it's the same in the live stream

00:08:23.040 as it is for following the comic.

00:08:25.360 All right, here is a hypothesis that I want to run by you.

00:08:29.820 And partly inspired by the fact that Asperger's

00:08:32.980 is often confused with other things.

00:08:35.220 So the Asperger's diagnosis can sometimes be

00:08:38.780 confused with narcissists.

00:08:42.420 Did you know that?

00:08:44.480 Now, I would like to start with a correction slash,

00:08:50.160 I don't know, apology maybe, clarification.

00:08:52.940 Whatever it is that says I used to be wrong,

00:08:55.220 but now I'm correcting myself.

00:08:56.700 So whatever words you want to put on that.

00:08:58.720 Now, I don't do this often.

00:08:59.940 I think you would agree.

00:09:03.320 I don't often say I was totally wrong about something.

00:09:06.220 I'm just going to correct it now.

00:09:08.040 So note this, please.

00:09:10.060 I do do it fairly, I would say, regularly,

00:09:14.820 but not a lot.

00:09:16.780 I mean, it happens every month or so.

00:09:19.460 And here's my correction slash apology,

00:09:23.000 whatever you want to call it.

00:09:23.860 Look, I've said for a while that narcissism isn't real.

00:09:29.420 Meaning that when people are accusing people of being narcissists,

00:09:33.720 they don't know what it is,

00:09:35.140 and really it's just people who have an inflated sense of their abilities,

00:09:40.340 but that that's probably a good thing to have.

00:09:44.160 Having an inflated sense of your ability, to some extent,

00:09:47.320 if it's not too much, is actually an advantage.

00:09:50.560 And in fact, you see lots of CEOs and famous people

00:09:53.580 who seem to have some narcissism succeed.

00:09:56.260 So my argument was that if your only problem

00:09:59.640 is that you think you're special,

00:10:03.560 that that's not really a disease.

00:10:05.920 That probably could be just good strategy,

00:10:08.020 or it's just lucky because it works.

00:10:11.240 But I have recently learned

00:10:13.600 that my knowledge about what narcissism is

00:10:16.400 was very lacking.

00:10:18.320 Very, very lacking.

00:10:20.260 Like, completely lacking.

00:10:22.620 In fact, I don't know if I've ever been more wrong about anything.

00:10:25.620 I can't think of anything I've been more wrong about.

00:10:28.120 So let me be as clear as I can.

00:10:30.900 Everything I said about this topic of narcissism,

00:10:34.340 totally wrong.

00:10:35.760 Here's what I think is right.

00:10:37.140 The part about thinking that you're, you know,

00:10:41.360 better than other people, or you're a little arrogant, 0.54

00:10:44.260 that is one small part of it.

00:10:47.740 All right?

00:10:48.260 If that's the part you're focusing on,

00:10:50.120 you're missing the whole show,

00:10:51.460 which is what I was.

00:10:53.040 So I spent some time yesterday doing a deep dive on the topic,

00:10:56.820 and I found out one of the reasons that Asperger's is confused

00:11:01.080 with narcissism sometimes is that they have a few things in common.

00:11:05.360 One is that they lie a lot.

00:11:07.840 Did you know that?

00:11:09.600 Apparently, Asperger's people lie a lot, 1.00

00:11:12.520 and so do narcissists.

00:11:14.600 But they lie for different reasons in different ways.

00:11:17.980 An Asperger's person would lie to avoid a social situation 1.00

00:11:23.000 that they don't know how to navigate.

00:11:24.460 So if you said, for example,

00:11:27.440 hey, did you eat my food that was in the refrigerator?

00:11:32.180 And this might be a bad example,

00:11:33.720 but just work with it for a moment.

00:11:35.640 An Asperger's person might say no, 0.84

00:11:39.340 because they don't know how to explain the fact

00:11:41.580 that they did something socially inappropriate,

00:11:44.180 eating somebody's food.

00:11:46.380 Now, if you're not Asperger's,

00:11:49.140 you might say, yeah, I was just hungry.

00:11:51.380 I'm sorry.

00:11:52.000 I know you were saving that.

00:11:53.360 I'll buy you another one.

00:11:54.980 I'll order it for you on DoorDash.

00:11:56.680 I just, you know, I was weak.

00:11:58.540 Sorry about that.

00:11:59.880 So the Asperger's just might not know how to handle it,

00:12:02.780 so it might just do a little convenience lie.

00:12:05.800 Whereas the narcissist will lie for manipulation and gain.

00:12:11.040 So if you're looking for the lies,

00:12:13.520 and they're manipulation lies,

00:12:15.380 and they're kind of clever,

00:12:16.500 that's a narcissist. 0.96

00:12:17.880 And if it's just trying to avoid a conversation,

00:12:20.180 that's probably Asperger's, or more likely.

00:12:25.640 And then the other part that can be confusing

00:12:30.180 is that the Asperger's people

00:12:31.640 may not have an appreciation for other people's thoughts.

00:12:37.400 So an Asperger's person could hurt you unintentionally 1.00

00:12:40.620 because they just didn't know that what they were doing

00:12:43.220 might cause you some grief.

00:12:44.840 So they just don't know.

00:12:47.500 Whereas the narcissists,

00:12:50.400 they know they're hurting you,

00:12:52.020 and they like it.

00:12:53.720 That's a pretty big difference.

00:12:56.140 The Asperger's people don't want to hurt you,

00:12:58.040 and they don't want to fool you,

00:12:59.780 but sometimes they might lie just to avoid a thing.

00:13:02.920 Whereas the narcissist, they do want to hurt you.

00:13:05.720 They enjoy it.

00:13:07.420 And it's a big manipulative thing.

00:13:10.420 All right, so those are just a few examples.

00:13:13.500 And I was Googling,

00:13:16.220 and interestingly,

00:13:17.880 you can find a list of 15 signs

00:13:20.200 that somebody is narcissistic,

00:13:22.980 but also another list where there are nine symptoms.

00:13:27.040 So if somebody has 15 symptoms of narcissism,

00:13:30.520 but another expert has nine,

00:13:33.680 what are the other six?

00:13:36.020 Why does one expert have six extra symptoms?

00:13:39.520 Well, part of it is that narcissism is not one thing.

00:13:42.700 There are families of different types of narcissisms.

00:13:46.720 There are the vulnerable ones

00:13:48.380 and the grandiose ones or something like that.

00:13:51.700 So it's not even one thing.

00:13:53.480 It's like a constellation of things.

00:13:56.520 So here are some aspects of narcissism,

00:14:02.540 and I want you to, just for fun,

00:14:06.160 I want you to check this hypothesis.

00:14:09.280 Here's my hypothesis.

00:14:10.480 Fox News is like your crazy uncle

00:14:14.980 who means well.

00:14:18.160 All right?

00:14:18.700 Now, my hypothesis is that each news organization

00:14:21.720 takes on a personality, if you will.

00:14:25.620 Fox News is your crazy uncle,

00:14:27.900 might believe in a few conspiracy theories.

00:14:30.700 He might, but he means well.

00:14:33.180 He wants the country to do well.

00:14:35.300 He wants his family to do well.

00:14:36.540 So that's Fox News' personality, I would say.

00:14:40.800 What is CNN's personality?

00:14:42.320 I would propose to you that CNN is a narcissist.

00:14:46.260 I'm going to read you some of the traits of a narcissist,

00:14:51.340 and I want you to tell me

00:14:52.400 if CNN as a network has these traits.

00:14:56.800 Okay?

00:14:57.960 Number one, only pretends to care about others.

00:15:00.700 Does CNN care about you,

00:15:04.100 or are you just their product,

00:15:06.280 and they're just sort of pretending to care about the audience?

00:15:09.640 Well, it looks like it's pretending, doesn't it?

00:15:11.960 Because they don't seem to be interested in telling you the truth.

00:15:15.620 It looks like they're pretending that they care.

00:15:18.820 Let's do another one.

00:15:21.160 They enjoy hurting you.

00:15:22.740 Now, would you say that CNN enjoys hurting anybody?

00:15:28.880 Probably not, right?

00:15:30.000 Your first thought would be,

00:15:31.540 no, they don't enjoy hurting anybody.

00:15:35.120 Or do they enjoy hurting Fox News?

00:15:38.360 Do they enjoy hurting President Trump?

00:15:41.720 Do they enjoy hurting QAnon believers? 1.00

00:15:45.920 Do they enjoy hurting climate deniers, as they would call them?

00:15:49.500 Do they enjoy hurting who they think would be bigots and racists?

00:15:54.380 No.

00:15:55.460 They enjoy it.

00:15:57.520 It's obvious they enjoy it.

00:15:59.620 Now, they would say that they're criticizing bad people.

00:16:03.280 But I think you can tell they enjoy it.

00:16:06.420 Right?

00:16:07.560 Again, this is all subjective,

00:16:09.600 but it looks like they enjoy it to me.

00:16:11.720 So, yes, I think they do enjoy hurting people,

00:16:13.720 as long as those people are conservatives.

00:16:16.100 Do they gaslight you?

00:16:19.940 Now, gaslighting is not just fooling you,

00:16:24.080 but making you doubt your understanding of reality.

00:16:27.880 Like actually thinking you must be crazy.

00:16:31.240 Yes.

00:16:31.820 Yes, they do.

00:16:33.040 They totally gaslight you.

00:16:35.160 And apparently that's a big indicator of being a narcissist.

00:16:39.420 How about exaggerated need for attention and validation,

00:16:43.840 but at the same time having low self-esteem?

00:16:47.800 When you watch CNN,

00:16:49.280 does it feel like they have low self-esteem

00:16:53.200 and they do a lot of saying that Fox News is really the bad one?

00:16:59.860 Because projection is part of being a narcissist.

00:17:03.980 Narcissists are famous projectors.

00:17:06.640 Whatever flaws they have,

00:17:09.340 they say their enemy has.

00:17:11.600 You watch CNN do that every day.

00:17:13.520 They just blame Fox News

00:17:15.580 of having whatever problem they have,

00:17:17.560 fake news, et cetera.

00:17:19.460 And do they have an exaggerated need for attention?

00:17:21.700 Well, they're in the business

00:17:22.840 where attention is their product.

00:17:24.920 So that's just automatic.

00:17:27.080 How about perfectionism for themselves and others?

00:17:31.140 Would they feel miserable

00:17:32.520 because they have not achieved it?

00:17:34.240 Well, I do think they have perfectionism for others,

00:17:38.720 wouldn't you say?

00:17:39.860 Wouldn't you say that most of the news

00:17:41.680 is criticizing other people for their imperfections?

00:17:45.580 That's most of CNN.

00:17:47.640 They're mostly criticizing people for their imperfections.

00:17:52.000 Yeah, narcissism.

00:17:53.900 How about lack of responsibility and blaming others?

00:17:58.020 Well, that's their entire business model.

00:18:00.680 CNN creates racist animosity

00:18:03.980 and then blames it on other people

00:18:06.860 like Trump and Tucker Carlson

00:18:10.140 and God knows what.

00:18:11.940 That's exactly what they do.

00:18:13.440 They create the problem

00:18:14.360 and they assign it to somebody else as the blame.

00:18:17.420 How about a lack of empathy?

00:18:20.360 For Republicans, yes.

00:18:24.260 How about a lack of empathy for white males?

00:18:29.160 Now, you could argue they don't deserve any empathy.

00:18:31.400 That's probably what CNN would argue.

00:18:33.800 Yeah, they have a complete lack of empathy

00:18:35.460 for some groups.

00:18:37.400 Now, you could argue that it's not universal lack of empathy.

00:18:40.360 They have lots of empathy for other groups.

00:18:43.120 But they certainly have a lack of empathy

00:18:45.940 for a substantial part of the country.

00:18:48.880 How about are they defensive?

00:18:50.840 Yes.

00:18:51.400 A lot of their programming is people on CNN

00:18:54.080 defending how they're not so bad

00:18:56.540 compared to Fox News.

00:18:58.360 Right?

00:18:58.640 They are defensive.

00:19:01.000 How about emotional reason instead of logical?

00:19:06.740 Do the hosts and pundits on CNN,

00:19:09.340 do they ever reason emotionally instead of logically?

00:19:13.460 Yes.

00:19:14.580 Like every night.

00:19:16.620 It's the basic to their programming.

00:19:18.480 How about fear of rejection?

00:19:23.800 Does CNN have a fear of rejection?

00:19:27.960 Yes, they do.

00:19:29.400 It's called losing ratings.

00:19:31.700 Do you think CNN worries about losing ratings?

00:19:34.200 In other words, fear of rejection?

00:19:36.340 It's probably all they think about.

00:19:38.460 And when Trump rejected them,

00:19:40.700 basically Trump became sort of the voice of conservatives,

00:19:44.600 if you will.

00:19:45.040 And then as their spokesperson, if you will,

00:19:48.960 rejected CNN.

00:19:50.340 How did they feel about it?

00:19:52.300 Not so good.

00:19:53.720 Turns out their rejection is CNN's biggest problem

00:19:56.380 because it turns into ratings.

00:19:59.300 How about anxiety?

00:20:02.780 Apparently narcissists have a lot of anxiety.

00:20:05.520 Does CNN strike you as,

00:20:07.620 let's just take their hosts, 0.76

00:20:09.480 and pundits too,

00:20:11.180 do their hosts and pundits

00:20:12.400 present themselves as having a lot of anxiety?

00:20:16.720 Yeah, they do.

00:20:18.660 Yeah, it's almost all you see.

00:20:20.780 It seems like it's the anxiety network.

00:20:23.180 They're all full of anxiety.

00:20:25.040 How about,

00:20:25.820 do they have a deep shame about themselves,

00:20:28.320 but not guilt about their actions?

00:20:31.320 Well,

00:20:32.100 I don't,

00:20:32.580 we don't know if anybody has a deep shame about themselves

00:20:35.080 because that would be hard to,

00:20:37.140 hard to measure.

00:20:39.800 We do know that Project Veritas

00:20:41.740 found one technical director at CNN

00:20:45.480 and filmed him undercover,

00:20:47.900 expressing deep shame about,

00:20:50.220 about himself

00:20:51.540 for being part of CNN.

00:20:53.520 So the only,

00:20:55.460 the only window into it we have

00:20:57.200 did in fact

00:20:58.880 show a technical director

00:21:00.900 expressing,

00:21:02.460 you know,

00:21:02.920 you could argue that he was expressing shame

00:21:05.120 about working for CNN.

00:21:06.980 But does CNN

00:21:08.380 not show any guilt

00:21:10.180 for their own actions?

00:21:12.320 That is correct.

00:21:13.860 CNN destroys reputations,

00:21:16.000 makes up the news

00:21:17.040 in various situations,

00:21:18.940 promotes hoaxes,

00:21:20.120 but do they show guilt about it?

00:21:22.000 I've never seen any guilt.

00:21:23.880 Have you?

00:21:24.760 No.

00:21:25.920 But,

00:21:26.760 Project Veritas

00:21:27.880 showed at least one technical director

00:21:29.900 who did have private shame.

00:21:32.900 So that seems to fit.

00:21:35.080 How about inability to work as a team?

00:21:37.760 So I guess narcissists are bad team players.

00:21:40.320 Well,

00:21:40.560 we don't know how that works

00:21:42.060 in the news context.

00:21:43.820 Let's skip that one.

00:21:45.340 Are they exploitative

00:21:46.900 in their relationships?

00:21:49.280 Do you think CNN

00:21:50.880 CNN has a mutual relationship

00:21:52.780 with its audience

00:21:53.820 or an exploitive relationship

00:21:56.440 with its audience?

00:21:59.320 Right?

00:22:00.640 It's exploitive.

00:22:02.540 Yeah,

00:22:02.900 it's completely exploitive

00:22:04.040 because CNN

00:22:05.060 is basically

00:22:06.600 promoting

00:22:07.540 hoaxes and bullshit

00:22:08.800 and bias

00:22:10.060 and they're trying

00:22:11.480 to get their audience

00:22:12.280 to think it's fact.

00:22:13.640 It's pretty exploitive.

00:22:15.020 How about

00:22:16.960 fragile sense of self?

00:22:20.640 CNN

00:22:21.140 literally ran

00:22:22.340 a campaign

00:22:23.600 defending itself

00:22:25.240 with that

00:22:26.780 apple and orange thing.

00:22:28.340 No,

00:22:28.640 the apple and banana thing

00:22:29.820 where

00:22:30.660 they had to

00:22:31.520 run ads

00:22:33.040 explaining

00:22:34.080 that they were

00:22:34.660 actually real news.

00:22:36.680 That's

00:22:37.360 pretty fragile

00:22:38.460 sense of self

00:22:39.240 if you have to

00:22:40.380 advertise

00:22:40.840 you're actually

00:22:41.380 a real news station

00:22:42.500 when you're CNN.

00:22:43.720 I mean,

00:22:46.260 just think about this.

00:22:47.740 They're CNN

00:22:48.540 and they had to run

00:22:50.340 an advertising campaign

00:22:51.860 to convince you

00:22:53.320 that their news

00:22:54.060 was actually

00:22:54.680 real news

00:22:55.420 compared

00:22:56.040 to other people.

00:22:58.400 That's

00:22:58.940 pretty

00:22:59.940 weak feeling

00:23:01.040 of sense

00:23:01.680 if you've got to

00:23:02.320 explain that in public.

00:23:03.880 How about

00:23:04.320 a feeling

00:23:05.000 of emptiness

00:23:05.600 when you're not

00:23:06.300 getting enough attention?

00:23:07.760 Well,

00:23:08.040 if the ratings

00:23:08.540 are low,

00:23:09.960 that's probably

00:23:10.580 a pretty empty feeling.

00:23:11.940 How about

00:23:13.240 envy?

00:23:15.400 Does CNN

00:23:16.440 display envy?

00:23:18.960 Yeah,

00:23:19.680 all over the place.

00:23:21.660 They envy

00:23:22.160 the rich,

00:23:24.080 right?

00:23:24.560 Because the rich

00:23:25.220 are getting everything.

00:23:26.760 They envy

00:23:27.460 Fox News

00:23:28.960 for its high ratings.

00:23:31.280 Yeah,

00:23:31.820 I believe that

00:23:32.440 they have plenty of envy.

00:23:34.020 And how about this?

00:23:35.280 The narcissist

00:23:36.160 would have an

00:23:36.840 arrogant,

00:23:38.060 haughty 0.59

00:23:38.420 behavior and attitude.

00:23:39.560 Have you seen

00:23:41.140 anybody on

00:23:42.100 CNN

00:23:42.660 that you would

00:23:44.040 describe as

00:23:44.920 arrogant or

00:23:45.840 haughty?

00:23:48.260 Have you seen

00:23:49.220 anybody who

00:23:49.820 wasn't?

00:23:52.120 Everybody on

00:23:53.060 CNN is

00:23:53.600 arrogant and

00:23:54.240 haughty.

00:23:55.320 That's basically

00:23:56.320 their whole act.

00:23:58.160 And if you're

00:23:58.980 wondering what

00:23:59.460 I would say

00:23:59.980 about MSNBC,

00:24:01.500 they're basically

00:24:02.000 just a worse

00:24:02.800 version of CNN.

00:24:04.460 So whatever

00:24:05.080 you could say

00:24:05.600 of CNN,

00:24:06.400 just crank it up

00:24:08.800 about 37%

00:24:09.980 of worseness.

00:24:11.520 And then that's

00:24:12.060 just MSNBC.

00:24:14.620 All right.

00:24:16.520 So what do you

00:24:17.300 think?

00:24:17.580 Did I make my

00:24:18.240 case?

00:24:19.080 Is CNN

00:24:19.620 a narcissist?

00:24:22.200 I mean,

00:24:23.220 it fits

00:24:23.740 almost all of

00:24:25.160 these categories.

00:24:26.740 And apparently

00:24:27.280 you can be a

00:24:28.000 narcissist with

00:24:29.080 only a few of

00:24:29.920 these.

00:24:30.820 So if you

00:24:31.400 had, I don't

00:24:32.220 know,

00:24:33.040 six out of

00:24:34.060 20 of these,

00:24:36.060 you would be

00:24:37.280 diagnosed as a

00:24:38.140 narcissist.

00:24:39.280 Whereas CNN

00:24:40.060 has something

00:24:40.640 like 18 out

00:24:41.580 of 20.

00:24:43.960 Looks pretty

00:24:45.440 clear to me.

00:24:47.340 Well, it looks

00:24:48.100 like I've made

00:24:48.640 my case.

00:24:50.120 And by the

00:24:50.480 way, what do

00:24:50.840 you think of

00:24:51.180 the hypothesis

00:24:51.940 that news

00:24:53.280 organizations

00:24:55.320 evolve to

00:24:57.460 a personality?

00:24:59.040 They do have

00:24:59.780 personalities,

00:25:00.500 don't they?

00:25:01.320 And if you

00:25:02.100 have a personality,

00:25:03.020 you could have

00:25:03.380 a personality

00:25:03.880 problem,

00:25:05.860 like

00:25:07.140 narcissism.

00:25:08.720 Now, of

00:25:09.240 course, part of

00:25:09.740 why I was

00:25:10.140 looking at

00:25:10.520 narcissism is

00:25:11.360 to find out

00:25:11.900 if I am

00:25:12.660 one.

00:25:14.500 Right?

00:25:15.660 Wouldn't you

00:25:16.140 like to know

00:25:16.600 if you are

00:25:16.980 one?

00:25:17.540 But it

00:25:17.980 turns out that

00:25:18.680 one of the

00:25:19.120 problems with

00:25:19.840 being a

00:25:20.240 narcissist is

00:25:21.520 you're the

00:25:21.820 only one who

00:25:22.300 can't tell.

00:25:23.800 Now, obviously

00:25:24.880 there must be

00:25:25.460 exceptions to

00:25:26.200 that.

00:25:26.880 But part of

00:25:27.600 being a

00:25:28.420 narcissist is

00:25:31.800 that other

00:25:32.200 people can see

00:25:32.840 it clearly,

00:25:33.300 but you

00:25:33.800 think, no,

00:25:34.460 I'm just

00:25:34.740 being me.

00:25:35.640 I'm just

00:25:36.080 being honest.

00:25:37.700 So you

00:25:38.820 have to

00:25:39.080 actually look

00:25:39.540 at the

00:25:39.760 checklist.

00:25:40.640 So if I

00:25:41.040 look down

00:25:41.360 the list

00:25:41.800 and say

00:25:42.380 to myself,

00:25:43.040 am I

00:25:43.380 ever

00:25:43.640 defensive?

00:25:45.000 I think,

00:25:46.340 yeah, of

00:25:47.860 course I'm

00:25:48.220 defensive.

00:25:49.520 Who isn't?

00:25:51.160 And why

00:25:51.540 would you

00:25:51.840 not be

00:25:52.240 defensive?

00:25:53.080 If you're

00:25:53.660 attacked,

00:25:55.440 shouldn't

00:25:55.740 you defend

00:25:56.160 yourself?

00:25:57.660 Is that

00:25:58.020 wrong?

00:25:59.320 So there

00:26:00.020 are a lot

00:26:00.240 of these

00:26:00.540 that seem

00:26:00.980 almost universally

00:26:02.000 true for

00:26:03.720 people in

00:26:04.320 general.

00:26:05.500 Am I

00:26:06.180 ever

00:26:06.460 arrogant

00:26:06.920 or

00:26:07.420 haughty?

00:26:10.860 What do

00:26:11.480 you think?

00:26:13.180 If you've

00:26:13.900 watched me

00:26:14.300 enough,

00:26:14.980 am I

00:26:15.240 ever

00:26:15.440 arrogant

00:26:15.840 or

00:26:16.220 haughty?

00:26:17.840 I'm

00:26:18.360 pretty sure

00:26:18.740 people will

00:26:19.180 say yes

00:26:19.560 to that.

00:26:20.960 But keep

00:26:21.260 in mind,

00:26:23.240 yeah,

00:26:24.340 people say

00:26:24.820 yes to

00:26:25.140 that.

00:26:25.680 But keep

00:26:26.000 in mind

00:26:26.320 that while

00:26:26.700 you see

00:26:27.260 the public

00:26:28.780 version of

00:26:29.360 me,

00:26:29.780 whether

00:26:29.940 it's in

00:26:31.060 written

00:26:32.000 form or

00:26:32.760 live.

00:26:34.440 The public

00:26:35.120 version of

00:26:35.660 me is that

00:26:36.160 you know

00:26:36.940 this,

00:26:37.280 right?

00:26:37.860 You see

00:26:38.440 a sort

00:26:39.120 of attenuated

00:26:40.160 version of

00:26:40.800 the real

00:26:41.080 person.

00:26:42.220 So whatever

00:26:42.760 I am in

00:26:43.400 person would

00:26:45.380 be dialed

00:26:46.320 down a little

00:26:46.780 bit from

00:26:47.180 whatever you

00:26:47.620 see in

00:26:48.380 public.

00:26:52.620 So yeah,

00:26:53.620 I think

00:26:54.240 that anybody

00:26:54.740 who thinks

00:26:55.440 they're right

00:26:56.200 bleeds into

00:26:58.900 arrogance.

00:26:59.500 it's hard

00:27:00.720 not to

00:27:01.200 really.

00:27:02.180 It's the

00:27:02.420 easiest mistake

00:27:03.940 to make

00:27:04.420 if you want

00:27:05.200 to call

00:27:05.440 it a

00:27:05.660 mistake.

00:27:08.020 How about

00:27:08.940 this?

00:27:09.220 Am I

00:27:09.520 exploitive in

00:27:10.420 my relationships?

00:27:11.940 To which I

00:27:12.700 say,

00:27:13.200 it's not

00:27:13.880 really a

00:27:14.300 relationship

00:27:14.800 unless you're

00:27:15.420 both getting

00:27:15.920 something out

00:27:16.520 of it.

00:27:17.420 So in

00:27:19.100 some way

00:27:19.500 everybody's

00:27:20.060 exploiting

00:27:20.600 their

00:27:20.820 relationships.

00:27:22.000 That's

00:27:22.420 what humans

00:27:23.640 do.

00:27:24.740 But you

00:27:25.860 know,

00:27:26.140 where's the

00:27:26.780 line when

00:27:27.320 it's just

00:27:27.800 exploitation?

00:27:29.500 Do I

00:27:30.600 have a

00:27:30.920 lack of

00:27:31.280 responsibility

00:27:31.820 where I

00:27:32.340 blame

00:27:32.560 others?

00:27:33.060 Nope.

00:27:34.120 I'm far

00:27:34.840 more likely

00:27:35.300 to take

00:27:35.720 responsibility

00:27:36.360 than blame

00:27:37.080 others.

00:27:38.140 Lack of

00:27:38.620 boundaries?

00:27:39.240 I don't

00:27:39.480 know.

00:27:40.180 You can

00:27:40.920 make an

00:27:41.240 argument that

00:27:41.680 everybody's a

00:27:42.300 little bit

00:27:42.600 of these.

00:27:44.120 All right,

00:27:44.500 here's a

00:27:44.940 reframing for

00:27:45.940 you.

00:27:46.800 If you

00:27:47.200 think that

00:27:47.840 climate change

00:27:48.820 is a big

00:27:49.620 old emergency,

00:27:50.980 and most

00:27:51.520 of the

00:27:51.700 experts do,

00:27:52.820 how could

00:27:53.480 you get

00:27:53.940 conservatives

00:27:55.240 to agree

00:27:55.880 with you?

00:27:57.120 Let's

00:27:57.560 say you're

00:27:57.940 on the

00:27:58.220 left and

00:27:58.720 you really

00:27:59.080 want the 0.55

00:27:59.700 conservatives

00:28:00.340 to agree

00:28:01.080 with you.

00:28:01.920 Well,

00:28:02.700 let me

00:28:03.280 make it

00:28:03.640 easy.

00:28:04.640 Just

00:28:05.200 reframe it

00:28:05.940 into the

00:28:06.940 China

00:28:08.260 pollution

00:28:08.740 problem.

00:28:10.800 If you

00:28:11.540 say,

00:28:12.020 hey,

00:28:12.180 everybody,

00:28:12.780 on the

00:28:13.280 left and

00:28:13.720 the right,

00:28:14.200 can we

00:28:14.500 get together

00:28:15.040 on this

00:28:15.480 China

00:28:15.880 pollution

00:28:16.380 problem?

00:28:18.240 Is there

00:28:18.600 anybody on

00:28:19.180 the right

00:28:19.960 who doesn't

00:28:21.200 want China

00:28:21.780 to pollute

00:28:22.440 less in

00:28:23.720 the oceans,

00:28:24.500 the air,

00:28:25.040 et cetera?

00:28:25.900 No.

00:28:26.560 Everybody

00:28:27.000 in the

00:28:28.060 world would

00:28:29.700 like,

00:28:30.080 including

00:28:30.480 China,

00:28:31.720 everybody in

00:28:32.360 the world

00:28:32.720 would like

00:28:33.500 China to

00:28:34.060 pollute

00:28:34.540 less because

00:28:36.480 it looks

00:28:36.860 like a

00:28:37.240 global

00:28:37.580 problem.

00:28:39.000 So if

00:28:39.720 you said,

00:28:40.320 you know,

00:28:41.700 what are we

00:28:42.460 going to do

00:28:42.860 about climate

00:28:43.780 emergency,

00:28:44.520 everybody just

00:28:45.080 fights about

00:28:45.780 whether there

00:28:46.280 is one or

00:28:46.780 not.

00:28:47.580 But if

00:28:48.040 you say,

00:28:48.540 what do we

00:28:48.860 do about

00:28:49.240 the China

00:28:49.680 pollution

00:28:50.140 problem,

00:28:52.660 everybody's

00:28:53.340 on the

00:28:53.560 same page.

00:28:55.340 There's

00:28:55.780 nobody who

00:28:56.300 wants China 0.96

00:28:57.020 to be

00:28:57.500 belching

00:28:57.980 smoke into

00:28:58.740 the atmosphere

00:28:59.300 and there's

00:29:00.620 nobody who

00:29:01.000 wants them

00:29:01.440 dumping garbage

00:29:02.720 into the

00:29:03.140 ocean and

00:29:03.680 they're doing

00:29:04.000 both of

00:29:04.360 those things.

00:29:05.980 So there's

00:29:08.220 certainly a

00:29:08.640 way to get

00:29:09.300 on the same

00:29:09.720 page on this.

00:29:10.400 And then the

00:29:10.760 other way is

00:29:11.360 nuclear energy

00:29:12.460 because if

00:29:14.280 the climate

00:29:15.880 people just

00:29:16.500 said one

00:29:16.960 thing,

00:29:17.340 they said,

00:29:17.660 look,

00:29:18.280 just give

00:29:18.760 us one

00:29:19.140 thing.

00:29:20.560 Just let's

00:29:21.160 all agree to

00:29:22.320 go hard on

00:29:22.960 nuclear energy

00:29:23.740 because we

00:29:25.100 both agree

00:29:25.780 it's necessary

00:29:27.260 maybe for

00:29:27.860 different reasons.

00:29:28.680 You say it's

00:29:29.460 necessary for

00:29:30.200 cheap energy,

00:29:31.340 we say it's

00:29:32.080 necessary for

00:29:32.840 climate change,

00:29:33.800 but we both

00:29:34.540 say it's

00:29:34.860 necessary so

00:29:35.620 let's just do

00:29:36.340 the thing we

00:29:37.280 agree on which

00:29:37.980 is nuclear

00:29:39.020 energy and do

00:29:39.720 it as fast

00:29:40.660 and hard as

00:29:41.140 we can.

00:29:42.460 And especially

00:29:43.000 generation four,

00:29:44.460 the new stuff

00:29:45.060 that's safer

00:29:46.060 and will be

00:29:47.520 more economical

00:29:48.240 when we

00:29:48.780 work out the

00:29:49.880 kinks. 0.92

00:29:51.280 So yeah,

00:29:52.040 it's called

00:29:52.280 the China

00:29:52.700 pollution

00:29:53.080 problem.

00:29:55.300 I think it

00:29:56.060 was the

00:29:56.300 Hodges twins

00:29:57.900 or somebody

00:29:58.420 pointed out

00:29:59.720 they're calling

00:30:00.200 that rocket

00:30:00.820 that's falling

00:30:01.360 down a

00:30:01.940 Chinese rocket.

00:30:03.060 It sounds

00:30:03.360 a little

00:30:03.620 racist, 0.77

00:30:04.660 except it

00:30:05.440 came from

00:30:05.780 China.

00:30:07.100 So there's

00:30:08.100 that.

00:30:10.580 There's a

00:30:11.440 interesting

00:30:12.520 climate change

00:30:13.520 skeptic who

00:30:14.500 has emerged

00:30:15.240 and it's

00:30:15.680 interesting because

00:30:16.620 it's Steve

00:30:18.020 Koonin,

00:30:18.640 former Obama

00:30:19.560 Department of

00:30:20.180 Energy scientist.

00:30:20.960 So this is

00:30:22.540 somebody who

00:30:23.060 was a

00:30:23.520 significant

00:30:24.040 scientist under

00:30:25.000 Obama in

00:30:25.800 the Department

00:30:26.300 of Energy

00:30:26.780 and he

00:30:29.940 makes claims

00:30:30.580 that basically

00:30:31.400 the news

00:30:32.380 exaggerates

00:30:33.200 threats so

00:30:34.560 the politicians

00:30:35.200 can stay in

00:30:36.060 power.

00:30:36.480 In other words,

00:30:36.940 the politicians

00:30:37.440 exaggerate the

00:30:38.260 threats.

00:30:39.600 But he makes

00:30:40.580 the following

00:30:40.980 claim that the

00:30:42.600 most official

00:30:43.420 climate change

00:30:44.300 data, so this

00:30:45.840 is the data

00:30:46.400 that everybody

00:30:47.020 agrees is the

00:30:47.840 official stuff,

00:30:48.600 right?

00:30:49.260 So this is

00:30:50.040 not somebody

00:30:50.640 who went

00:30:50.960 out and

00:30:51.240 found his

00:30:51.640 own data.

00:30:52.980 He's looking

00:30:53.560 at the

00:30:53.940 official data

00:30:54.860 that the

00:30:56.080 people who

00:30:56.980 would call

00:30:57.360 this a

00:30:57.760 climate

00:30:58.100 emergency,

00:30:59.760 it's their

00:31:00.580 data.

00:31:01.740 So he didn't

00:31:02.520 introduce any

00:31:03.280 data.

00:31:04.120 He's just

00:31:04.680 looking at the

00:31:05.420 data that

00:31:06.300 already exists

00:31:07.280 and he says

00:31:08.580 there's no

00:31:09.700 data that

00:31:11.400 shows that

00:31:11.940 hurricanes or

00:31:12.800 fires are

00:31:14.320 worse.

00:31:15.640 In fact,

00:31:16.640 they're probably

00:31:17.020 not as bad

00:31:17.640 as they

00:31:17.880 used to

00:31:18.160 be.

00:31:19.200 And he

00:31:19.920 says there

00:31:21.060 was something

00:31:21.340 about economics

00:31:22.240 but I think

00:31:22.680 that got

00:31:23.100 clipped off.

00:31:24.340 And I think

00:31:24.660 he was making

00:31:25.100 the case that

00:31:25.620 the economics

00:31:26.200 wouldn't be

00:31:26.680 as bad.

00:31:27.920 Now,

00:31:28.580 his statement

00:31:29.480 of how we

00:31:30.140 get to the

00:31:30.560 point where

00:31:32.180 the data

00:31:32.840 says things

00:31:34.180 don't look

00:31:34.880 that bad

00:31:35.600 and yet the

00:31:36.800 headline says

00:31:37.720 it's an

00:31:38.620 emergency.

00:31:39.920 How do you

00:31:40.300 explain that?

00:31:41.920 How do you

00:31:42.320 explain that the

00:31:43.040 data says

00:31:44.600 it's not so

00:31:45.220 bad but the

00:31:46.540 headline says

00:31:47.260 it's really,

00:31:48.140 really bad.

00:31:48.880 And he

00:31:49.100 explains it

00:31:49.580 this way.

00:31:50.000 This is a

00:31:50.260 good explanation

00:31:50.880 that you

00:31:52.360 start with

00:31:52.780 the data

00:31:53.160 that not

00:31:53.820 too many

00:31:54.180 people can

00:31:54.700 understand.

00:31:55.600 They're not

00:31:55.880 qualified.

00:31:57.040 And then

00:31:57.260 of course

00:31:57.940 that has

00:31:58.320 to be

00:31:58.560 turned into

00:31:59.000 a summary.

00:32:00.320 As soon

00:32:00.940 as you

00:32:01.220 change it

00:32:01.660 from the

00:32:02.280 raw data

00:32:03.820 to the

00:32:04.840 summary,

00:32:05.760 you've

00:32:06.600 left

00:32:06.920 science.

00:32:08.960 There's

00:32:09.300 no science

00:32:09.800 there.

00:32:10.580 Basically,

00:32:11.240 the summary

00:32:11.740 is going

00:32:12.280 to be

00:32:12.500 politically

00:32:13.020 determined.

00:32:14.380 The data

00:32:16.660 was done

00:32:17.040 by the

00:32:17.360 scientists,

00:32:18.100 but when

00:32:18.640 you get

00:32:18.880 to the

00:32:19.080 point where

00:32:19.380 you're

00:32:19.600 summarizing

00:32:20.160 it for

00:32:20.420 the public,

00:32:22.440 politics

00:32:22.800 gets in.

00:32:24.140 So by

00:32:24.800 the time

00:32:25.140 it's

00:32:25.360 summarized,

00:32:26.140 you don't

00:32:26.460 see science

00:32:27.060 anymore.

00:32:27.840 It's watered

00:32:28.600 down with

00:32:28.940 politics.

00:32:30.000 And then

00:32:30.280 the summary

00:32:30.900 goes to

00:32:32.480 the news

00:32:32.900 organizations.

00:32:34.400 And the

00:32:34.760 news

00:32:35.000 organizations

00:32:35.660 put their

00:32:36.600 own spin

00:32:38.220 on it.

00:32:39.160 Now you're

00:32:39.700 two levels

00:32:40.500 away from

00:32:41.420 science.

00:32:42.020 First

00:32:43.400 level is

00:32:43.920 politics.

00:32:45.220 And the

00:32:45.420 second

00:32:45.640 level is

00:32:46.180 the fake

00:32:46.540 news,

00:32:47.060 who have

00:32:47.940 their own

00:32:48.440 incentives,

00:32:49.220 et cetera.

00:32:50.200 So according

00:32:52.720 to that

00:32:53.140 model,

00:32:53.940 you would

00:32:54.360 never expect

00:32:55.120 that the

00:32:55.660 news reporting

00:32:56.580 on science

00:32:57.200 would be

00:32:57.600 accurate,

00:32:58.340 unless by

00:32:58.920 coincidence or

00:32:59.740 something,

00:33:00.600 you know,

00:33:00.940 just something

00:33:01.300 nobody cared

00:33:01.780 about.

00:33:04.780 Anyway,

00:33:06.840 so this

00:33:07.700 expert,

00:33:08.360 if you had

00:33:09.200 not heard

00:33:09.600 this argument

00:33:10.160 before,

00:33:11.040 that the

00:33:11.540 data does

00:33:12.220 not match

00:33:13.680 the outcome,

00:33:17.240 you didn't

00:33:17.860 listen to

00:33:18.240 me.

00:33:19.140 Because I've

00:33:19.700 been saying

00:33:20.140 it since

00:33:21.100 the last

00:33:21.820 official report

00:33:23.120 came out,

00:33:24.260 I've been

00:33:24.860 saying if you

00:33:25.540 look at their

00:33:26.020 own numbers,

00:33:27.620 they say the

00:33:28.260 economic impact

00:33:29.300 in 80 years

00:33:30.200 would be about

00:33:31.240 a 10% hit

00:33:32.200 on GDP.

00:33:33.640 Who was the

00:33:34.460 first person

00:33:35.120 who told you

00:33:35.800 that you

00:33:36.800 wouldn't even

00:33:37.220 notice that

00:33:37.740 much of a hit?

00:33:39.420 Probably me.

00:33:40.260 I'm probably

00:33:41.200 the first

00:33:41.600 person who

00:33:42.060 told you,

00:33:42.520 wait a minute,

00:33:43.340 the headline

00:33:43.760 doesn't match

00:33:44.340 the data.

00:33:45.400 The data

00:33:45.840 says a 10%

00:33:46.780 hit in 80

00:33:47.400 years,

00:33:47.780 you wouldn't

00:33:48.120 know that.

00:33:49.080 You would

00:33:49.380 never even

00:33:49.820 know what

00:33:50.140 happened.

00:33:51.500 There would

00:33:52.060 be no

00:33:52.500 signal in

00:33:53.740 your life,

00:33:54.760 in the

00:33:55.080 world,

00:33:55.860 in economics.

00:33:58.000 If you think

00:33:58.840 you would

00:33:59.180 notice,

00:34:00.020 let me give

00:34:00.500 you an 0.64

00:34:00.680 example.

00:34:01.980 The economy

00:34:03.080 right now

00:34:03.940 is 5%

00:34:05.500 less than

00:34:06.160 it could

00:34:06.540 have been.

00:34:07.480 Did you

00:34:07.840 notice?

00:34:10.200 Now, you

00:34:10.760 notice the

00:34:11.260 pandemic stuff,

00:34:12.140 of course,

00:34:12.720 but if you

00:34:13.380 don't count

00:34:13.740 the pandemic

00:34:14.240 and I just

00:34:14.900 say, you

00:34:15.200 know, it

00:34:15.940 could have

00:34:16.160 been 5%

00:34:16.740 better.

00:34:17.780 You never

00:34:18.340 noticed because

00:34:20.060 everything could

00:34:20.620 have been 5%

00:34:21.320 better.

00:34:22.100 Do you know

00:34:22.420 what else could

00:34:22.900 have been 5%

00:34:23.560 or 10%

00:34:24.040 better?

00:34:25.140 Everything you

00:34:25.820 do today.

00:34:26.740 And you

00:34:27.260 won't notice.

00:34:28.320 You'll just

00:34:28.740 notice it's

00:34:29.280 good or bad,

00:34:30.220 but you'll

00:34:30.760 never notice

00:34:31.340 what it could

00:34:31.940 have been in

00:34:32.980 a hypothetical

00:34:33.560 world.

00:34:34.580 So, I

00:34:37.520 think I

00:34:37.840 was the

00:34:38.080 first one

00:34:38.420 to tell

00:34:38.700 you that

00:34:39.060 the data

00:34:39.680 and the

00:34:39.900 headlines

00:34:40.200 don't match,

00:34:40.940 at least

00:34:41.240 on the

00:34:41.500 economic

00:34:41.880 stuff.

00:34:42.920 And

00:34:43.040 apparently

00:34:43.360 on the

00:34:43.680 science

00:34:44.020 stuff,

00:34:45.200 this gentleman

00:34:45.940 who is

00:34:46.400 qualified to

00:34:47.120 say so,

00:34:47.580 I guess he

00:34:47.900 has a

00:34:48.120 book out,

00:34:49.080 is saying

00:34:49.540 that the

00:34:49.940 headlines

00:34:50.420 and the

00:34:50.800 data don't

00:34:51.260 match.

00:34:52.340 Now, I'm

00:34:52.900 not telling

00:34:53.280 you that

00:34:53.620 climate change

00:34:54.220 is not a

00:34:54.860 problem.

00:34:56.520 If you're

00:34:57.200 new to me,

00:34:58.520 here's my

00:34:59.300 summary opinion

00:35:00.340 on climate

00:35:00.960 change.

00:35:02.640 Probably

00:35:03.080 humans are

00:35:04.120 making it.

00:35:04.500 difference.

00:35:05.320 I think

00:35:05.660 there are

00:35:06.380 enough

00:35:06.600 scientists

00:35:06.980 saying that

00:35:07.540 that it

00:35:07.940 seems likely.

00:35:10.880 I think

00:35:11.600 the total

00:35:12.300 amount of

00:35:12.980 risk is

00:35:13.700 lower than

00:35:14.480 most people

00:35:15.380 think, but

00:35:16.460 I like the

00:35:17.040 fact that

00:35:17.440 we're panicked.

00:35:18.680 Because the

00:35:19.060 more panicked

00:35:19.660 we are, the

00:35:20.140 more resources

00:35:20.720 we'll put

00:35:21.140 into it, and

00:35:22.120 therefore we'll

00:35:22.680 make sure that

00:35:23.380 it doesn't

00:35:23.940 become a

00:35:24.360 problem.

00:35:24.900 So I'm

00:35:25.100 not worried

00:35:25.440 in the

00:35:25.680 long run,

00:35:26.780 but I

00:35:29.180 think it's

00:35:29.460 real.

00:35:30.000 I just

00:35:30.320 think we

00:35:30.720 can handle

00:35:31.140 it.

00:35:32.200 So,

00:35:32.680 there's an

00:35:33.960 interesting

00:35:34.320 thing

00:35:34.660 happening

00:35:35.040 with the

00:35:35.540 Arizona

00:35:36.120 audit

00:35:37.540 recount.

00:35:40.300 The

00:35:40.780 opponents

00:35:42.160 of the

00:35:42.840 recount,

00:35:43.820 I guess

00:35:44.220 that would

00:35:44.520 be the

00:35:45.260 way to

00:35:45.500 say it,

00:35:46.160 because a

00:35:46.840 lot of the

00:35:47.180 Democrats

00:35:47.480 are complaining

00:35:48.120 that the

00:35:48.540 recount,

00:35:49.500 or the

00:35:49.840 audit,

00:35:50.220 if you

00:35:50.440 will,

00:35:51.160 is so

00:35:52.860 poorly

00:35:53.140 done and

00:35:53.620 it's not

00:35:54.020 transparent that

00:35:55.020 we won't get

00:35:55.580 a credible

00:35:56.080 audit out of

00:35:57.020 this.

00:35:57.480 We'll just

00:35:57.940 get garbage.

00:35:58.780 But here's

00:35:59.940 the thing.

00:36:01.000 There's only

00:36:01.800 an audit

00:36:02.200 because the

00:36:02.860 election itself

00:36:03.700 wasn't

00:36:04.280 transparent.

00:36:06.320 Can you

00:36:07.100 really tell

00:36:07.720 me that

00:36:08.260 the problem

00:36:08.780 is the

00:36:09.220 audit is

00:36:09.840 not

00:36:10.080 transparent?

00:36:11.620 That's

00:36:12.200 the problem?

00:36:13.320 You

00:36:13.880 wouldn't need

00:36:14.600 an audit

00:36:15.080 if the

00:36:15.880 election itself

00:36:16.700 were transparent,

00:36:17.880 would you?

00:36:19.200 And if the

00:36:19.940 audit is going

00:36:20.600 to be a

00:36:20.940 problem,

00:36:21.940 just compare

00:36:22.520 it to the

00:36:23.180 totally

00:36:24.180 transparent election

00:36:25.360 that you think

00:36:26.040 exists.

00:36:27.120 And then you

00:36:27.480 could say,

00:36:27.740 oh,

00:36:27.980 the audit

00:36:28.320 is wrong

00:36:28.820 because the

00:36:30.020 election was

00:36:30.520 so transparent

00:36:31.220 you could just

00:36:31.720 see it's

00:36:31.980 wrong.

00:36:32.580 Just look at

00:36:33.040 the real

00:36:34.220 election.

00:36:35.700 See,

00:36:35.900 none of it

00:36:36.240 makes any

00:36:36.640 sense.

00:36:37.520 So you're

00:36:38.040 being totally

00:36:38.720 gaslighted

00:36:39.600 into believing

00:36:41.000 that the

00:36:42.660 problem here

00:36:43.320 is the

00:36:43.740 audit.

00:36:44.520 Now,

00:36:44.960 I'm going

00:36:45.180 to make a

00:36:45.560 claim that

00:36:46.080 I think

00:36:46.440 is true,

00:36:48.100 but I'll

00:36:48.500 open this

00:36:49.820 to your

00:36:50.280 fact-checking.

00:36:51.760 I believe

00:36:52.380 there could

00:36:52.860 be no

00:36:53.380 outcome of

00:36:54.280 the audit

00:36:54.860 that shows

00:36:56.380 a problem

00:36:57.160 without us

00:36:58.980 being able

00:36:59.520 to verify

00:37:00.980 that that

00:37:01.540 problem's

00:37:02.020 real.

00:37:03.880 So in

00:37:04.420 other words,

00:37:04.920 if the

00:37:05.800 audit came

00:37:06.400 up with

00:37:06.860 nothing,

00:37:07.700 said,

00:37:07.960 okay,

00:37:08.200 we didn't

00:37:08.480 find anything,

00:37:09.620 would you

00:37:10.040 believe that

00:37:10.880 is credible?

00:37:12.900 Probably.

00:37:14.020 I mean,

00:37:14.340 you might say

00:37:14.740 to yourself,

00:37:15.220 well,

00:37:15.540 I think it's

00:37:16.000 still hidden

00:37:16.460 somewhere,

00:37:16.980 but they

00:37:17.200 didn't find

00:37:17.660 it.

00:37:18.200 At least

00:37:18.580 they looked.

00:37:19.760 At least

00:37:20.080 it's way

00:37:20.420 more transparent

00:37:21.080 than it

00:37:21.420 was.

00:37:21.640 So one

00:37:22.520 possibility

00:37:23.040 is they

00:37:23.540 don't

00:37:23.820 find

00:37:24.260 anything.

00:37:27.540 But suppose

00:37:28.340 they do

00:37:28.680 find something.

00:37:30.300 Suppose,

00:37:31.180 and I'm

00:37:31.800 predicting

00:37:32.320 this will

00:37:32.840 not happen,

00:37:34.220 but one

00:37:34.660 of the

00:37:35.040 more,

00:37:35.540 let's say,

00:37:36.120 exotic

00:37:36.560 claims is

00:37:38.180 that some

00:37:38.540 of the

00:37:38.760 ballots were

00:37:39.280 printed in

00:37:39.860 China and

00:37:40.500 they're fake

00:37:40.920 ballots,

00:37:41.900 and that

00:37:42.260 you could

00:37:42.580 tell because

00:37:43.060 they would

00:37:43.400 have bamboo

00:37:43.980 in them.

00:37:45.380 It doesn't

00:37:46.900 even sound

00:37:47.280 like it's

00:37:47.680 a real

00:37:48.640 theory,

00:37:49.480 but apparently

00:37:50.280 they do

00:37:50.720 make paper

00:37:51.280 out of

00:37:51.680 bamboo

00:37:52.300 products over

00:37:53.720 there.

00:37:54.600 So suppose

00:37:55.800 the Arizona

00:37:57.060 recount said,

00:37:57.860 look,

00:37:58.220 we found

00:37:58.900 this big

00:37:59.340 stack of

00:37:59.940 ballots,

00:38:00.820 and we

00:38:01.760 found that

00:38:02.260 it has

00:38:02.560 bamboo in

00:38:03.100 it.

00:38:03.760 That wouldn't

00:38:04.440 be the end

00:38:04.880 of the

00:38:05.140 story,

00:38:05.920 right?

00:38:06.920 You'd have

00:38:07.580 to show

00:38:07.960 that to

00:38:08.320 somebody,

00:38:09.360 and some

00:38:09.920 independent

00:38:10.460 source or

00:38:11.100 sources would

00:38:11.780 have to

00:38:12.100 check it,

00:38:13.080 and they

00:38:13.440 would either

00:38:13.760 say,

00:38:14.200 yes,

00:38:14.460 there is

00:38:14.880 or is

00:38:15.220 not

00:38:15.520 bamboo in

00:38:16.200 this paper.

00:38:17.760 But I

00:38:18.280 don't know

00:38:18.640 that there's

00:38:19.040 any situation

00:38:19.920 in which

00:38:20.540 the audit

00:38:21.860 can come

00:38:22.320 up with

00:38:22.580 a problem,

00:38:23.620 say here's

00:38:24.080 the problem,

00:38:25.380 and then you

00:38:25.880 couldn't check

00:38:26.420 it.

00:38:27.660 So all of

00:38:28.780 this stuff

00:38:29.200 about the

00:38:29.640 audit being

00:38:30.300 non-transparent

00:38:31.640 and done

00:38:32.640 by people

00:38:33.160 who don't

00:38:33.540 know how

00:38:33.900 to do

00:38:34.180 things,

00:38:34.820 et cetera,

00:38:35.760 is this

00:38:36.260 real?

00:38:37.520 Because what

00:38:38.300 possible thing

00:38:39.420 could they

00:38:39.780 find that

00:38:41.100 you couldn't

00:38:41.620 just check?

00:38:43.020 It's the

00:38:43.620 finding it

00:38:44.200 that's the

00:38:44.560 hard problem.

00:38:45.960 The checking

00:38:46.520 whether it's

00:38:47.120 real,

00:38:48.100 once you

00:38:48.740 found it,

00:38:49.920 is trivial,

00:38:51.220 right?

00:38:51.780 If they

00:38:52.280 found,

00:38:52.660 for example,

00:38:53.220 that a

00:38:54.280 machine was

00:38:56.200 connected to

00:38:56.800 the internet,

00:38:58.120 well,

00:38:58.400 they'd have

00:38:58.720 to have

00:38:58.980 evidence,

00:39:00.520 right?

00:39:01.240 You could

00:39:01.920 just check

00:39:02.440 it.

00:39:03.700 So I don't

00:39:04.840 think that

00:39:05.200 this claim

00:39:05.760 about the

00:39:06.460 audit being

00:39:07.140 done poorly,

00:39:08.860 I think it's

00:39:10.000 all just

00:39:10.300 fake news.

00:39:11.320 Because no

00:39:12.020 matter how

00:39:12.500 poorly it's

00:39:13.140 done,

00:39:13.580 if they

00:39:14.020 find something,

00:39:15.480 you're just

00:39:16.140 going to be

00:39:16.480 able to check

00:39:17.020 it, and

00:39:17.620 probably won't

00:39:18.100 even take

00:39:18.480 long.

00:39:20.360 I don't know,

00:39:20.880 but check me

00:39:21.440 on that.

00:39:21.820 Do you

00:39:21.960 think,

00:39:22.980 now the

00:39:23.440 risk, of

00:39:23.880 course, is

00:39:24.860 that they'll

00:39:25.180 make a

00:39:25.620 claim.

00:39:26.600 The claim

00:39:27.360 is checked

00:39:27.960 and debunked,

00:39:28.880 but nobody

00:39:29.460 remembers the

00:39:30.280 debunk.

00:39:31.420 That's a real

00:39:31.960 risk.

00:39:32.760 Because we

00:39:33.380 know that

00:39:33.720 the claims

00:39:34.260 always have

00:39:34.880 more precedence

00:39:35.740 over any

00:39:36.640 corrections that

00:39:37.360 come later.

00:39:38.000 They're like,

00:39:38.380 oh, correction.

00:39:39.800 So, I mean,

00:39:40.720 I suppose that's

00:39:41.400 one possibility,

00:39:42.320 is that the

00:39:42.820 audit could come

00:39:43.500 up with some

00:39:44.080 big claim that

00:39:45.480 doesn't stand

00:39:46.180 up, but

00:39:47.000 it's too

00:39:47.480 late, because

00:39:47.960 then it gets

00:39:49.000 out.

00:39:50.620 You know the

00:39:51.180 story about

00:39:52.140 the Israel

00:39:53.580 alleged ethnic

00:39:55.060 cleansing, in

00:39:56.240 which they

00:39:56.860 were allegedly

00:39:57.480 taking Islamic

00:39:59.900 people out of

00:40:00.740 their apartments

00:40:01.260 and moving in

00:40:02.240 Jewish residence

00:40:03.540 in part of

00:40:04.620 Jerusalem.

00:40:06.960 And, of

00:40:07.680 course, when

00:40:08.160 you hear a

00:40:08.500 story like

00:40:08.900 that, the

00:40:10.040 first thing you

00:40:10.960 should say to

00:40:11.500 yourself is,

00:40:12.520 I think I'm

00:40:13.580 missing some

00:40:14.120 context.

00:40:15.480 And, of

00:40:16.460 course, the

00:40:16.880 news is pretty

00:40:17.780 sketchy.

00:40:18.700 So there was

00:40:19.100 some context

00:40:19.600 missing.

00:40:20.220 So some of

00:40:20.580 the context

00:40:21.060 that's missing

00:40:21.640 is that it's

00:40:22.980 a property

00:40:24.300 dispute.

00:40:25.880 So it was

00:40:26.840 not a case

00:40:27.520 of just

00:40:28.000 removing people

00:40:29.640 of one

00:40:30.220 ethnicity and

00:40:31.040 replacing them

00:40:31.720 with another,

00:40:32.880 which would

00:40:33.380 be some

00:40:34.520 kind of

00:40:35.060 ethnic

00:40:37.720 cleansing.

00:40:39.240 So the

00:40:41.280 claim is that

00:40:41.900 there was just

00:40:42.360 a dispute about

00:40:43.200 who actually

00:40:43.740 owned those

00:40:44.260 apartments and

00:40:45.460 et cetera.

00:40:46.700 But I ask

00:40:47.500 you this.

00:40:49.540 Isn't that the

00:40:50.160 same way you

00:40:50.640 talk about the

00:40:51.720 Native Americans

00:40:52.560 being displaced

00:40:53.440 in the United

00:40:54.160 States?

00:40:55.120 If I said to

00:40:56.060 you, well,

00:40:56.940 describe the

00:40:58.680 Europeans

00:40:59.360 displacing Native

00:41:01.020 Americans in

00:41:02.200 America when

00:41:03.040 the settlers

00:41:03.820 came over,

00:41:04.940 was that a

00:41:05.840 case of

00:41:06.280 ethnic

00:41:06.660 cleansing?

00:41:08.300 Or was

00:41:09.660 it a case of

00:41:10.260 property

00:41:10.640 dispute?

00:41:11.240 Because I

00:41:14.760 think if you

00:41:15.240 asked the

00:41:15.840 people who

00:41:17.760 were doing

00:41:18.160 all the

00:41:18.740 abusing of

00:41:19.620 the Native

00:41:19.980 Americans,

00:41:20.780 at the time

00:41:21.620 they probably

00:41:22.060 would have

00:41:22.340 said, well,

00:41:22.880 it's not

00:41:23.140 their land.

00:41:24.220 They don't

00:41:24.780 have a deed

00:41:25.340 to the land.

00:41:27.040 We think

00:41:27.680 it's up for

00:41:28.320 grabs, so

00:41:29.580 we're grabbing

00:41:30.040 it.

00:41:30.880 So it's

00:41:31.660 really a land

00:41:32.200 dispute.

00:41:33.120 We say it's

00:41:33.760 ours, they

00:41:34.320 say it's

00:41:34.660 theirs.

00:41:35.540 We got the

00:41:36.100 power, we

00:41:36.540 took it.

00:41:38.200 Looks the

00:41:38.760 same to me.

00:41:39.360 So it

00:41:41.300 turns out

00:41:41.720 you can

00:41:42.080 turn any

00:41:42.800 well, not

00:41:45.480 any, but

00:41:46.260 you can

00:41:46.580 turn a

00:41:47.160 real estate

00:41:47.940 dispute into

00:41:48.880 ethnic

00:41:49.300 cleansing

00:41:49.720 without much

00:41:50.400 effort.

00:41:51.840 And it's

00:41:52.540 going to

00:41:52.760 look like

00:41:53.340 one or

00:41:53.700 the other

00:41:54.080 with the

00:41:54.680 same set

00:41:55.100 of facts.

00:41:56.200 So put

00:41:56.960 whatever

00:41:57.260 facts on

00:41:57.780 that you

00:41:58.280 want.

00:41:59.380 I would

00:42:00.000 say that

00:42:00.440 when over

00:42:01.600 in that

00:42:01.980 part of

00:42:02.340 the land,

00:42:02.860 if there's

00:42:03.300 a court

00:42:03.740 involved, I

00:42:04.520 wouldn't

00:42:04.760 trust it.

00:42:06.540 So allegedly

00:42:07.300 there's a

00:42:07.920 court involved

00:42:08.760 and the

00:42:09.180 court seems

00:42:10.480 to have

00:42:10.800 ruled in 0.94

00:42:11.280 favor of

00:42:11.660 the people

00:42:12.020 who are

00:42:12.440 replacing the

00:42:14.340 people who

00:42:14.680 are in

00:42:14.860 there.

00:42:15.740 And I

00:42:17.260 don't want

00:42:17.480 to use

00:42:17.700 replace.

00:42:19.400 Did that

00:42:20.020 sound dog

00:42:20.540 whistly?

00:42:21.640 If you

00:42:22.180 use the

00:42:22.560 word replace

00:42:23.280 in a generic

00:42:23.920 sense, but

00:42:24.740 this is the

00:42:25.280 topic, then

00:42:26.280 you sound

00:42:26.640 like you're

00:42:27.220 a white

00:42:27.760 supremacist.

00:42:29.100 So instead

00:42:29.800 of that, let's

00:42:30.460 just say the

00:42:30.900 people who

00:42:31.280 moved in

00:42:31.800 and not the

00:42:34.560 people who

00:42:34.920 moved out.

00:42:35.960 I have to

00:42:36.620 choose my

00:42:37.280 language carefully.

00:42:38.760 Anyway, it

00:42:42.380 seems to me

00:42:42.940 that the

00:42:43.340 Israeli courts

00:42:44.220 would probably

00:42:45.400 side with

00:42:47.300 the Israelis.

00:42:49.860 You know, it

00:42:51.040 just feels like

00:42:51.860 that would be

00:42:52.240 the case.

00:42:53.020 So we don't

00:42:53.800 know the

00:42:54.080 details in

00:42:54.660 that, but I

00:42:55.340 don't trust

00:42:55.800 anything about

00:42:56.360 this story is

00:42:57.180 the bottom

00:42:57.480 line.

00:42:58.560 And that

00:43:00.240 is my show

00:43:03.360 for the

00:43:03.660 day.

00:43:06.000 CTT says,

00:43:07.540 Scott is so

00:43:08.360 pathetic now.

00:43:10.440 Oh, and

00:43:11.860 that's a

00:43:12.200 person who

00:43:12.760 spent their

00:43:13.340 time watching

00:43:14.020 me.

00:43:15.520 Let's say

00:43:16.400 we'll hide

00:43:17.700 you on this

00:43:18.260 channel.

00:43:18.620 just looking

00:43:27.200 at your

00:43:27.800 profit,

00:43:30.480 at your

00:43:30.960 Buy

00:43:32.740 Christina

00:43:33.120 an airplane

00:43:33.560 with your

00:43:34.460 Ethereum windfall

00:43:36.160 money.

00:43:36.840 Well, remember

00:43:37.240 I told you

00:43:37.780 that the

00:43:38.400 Ethereum windfall

00:43:39.460 was around

00:43:39.960 $300,000,

00:43:41.160 but remember

00:43:41.860 you have to

00:43:42.240 cut that in

00:43:42.680 half, right?

00:43:43.860 When you're

00:43:44.440 talking about

00:43:45.140 that kind

00:43:47.100 of money,

00:43:48.000 half of it

00:43:48.820 is just

00:43:49.160 paid in

00:43:49.780 taxes.

00:43:50.480 Did you

00:43:50.720 know that,

00:43:51.100 by the way?

00:43:51.640 When I

00:43:52.140 told you

00:43:52.480 that I

00:43:52.820 found $300,000,

00:43:54.960 because I

00:43:55.440 had a

00:43:55.780 crypto wallet

00:43:56.480 I'd forgotten

00:43:57.380 about, I had

00:43:57.960 some Ethereum

00:43:58.500 in there,

00:43:59.780 and anyway,

00:44:04.240 I don't need

00:44:04.860 to finish

00:44:05.200 that.

00:44:08.300 Oh, and

00:44:08.800 Happy Mother's

00:44:09.400 Day, by the

00:44:10.380 way.

00:44:11.000 Yeah, so

00:44:11.340 there'd be,

00:44:11.940 oh, it's

00:44:12.400 true, it'd

00:44:12.700 be a capital

00:44:13.200 gains tax,

00:44:14.760 but,

00:44:15.140 if Biden

00:44:16.780 changes,

00:44:17.980 well, no,

00:44:18.540 if I

00:44:19.180 cash it in

00:44:19.820 now, it's

00:44:20.740 15%, but

00:44:22.460 Biden's going

00:44:23.080 to raise

00:44:23.420 that to

00:44:24.020 closer to

00:44:25.200 50%, I

00:44:25.980 think.

00:44:27.000 Or I

00:44:27.560 could just

00:44:27.840 keep the

00:44:28.160 Ethereum.

00:44:33.240 All right,

00:44:34.480 any tips

00:44:35.900 for improving

00:44:36.620 speaking?

00:44:38.080 Do you

00:44:38.340 mean speaking

00:44:38.880 in front of

00:44:39.320 people, or

00:44:40.020 just your

00:44:40.960 voice speaking?

00:44:42.480 I do have

00:44:43.220 lots of tips

00:44:43.760 for that, but

00:44:44.500 the Dale

00:44:44.800 Carnegie

00:44:45.140 course would

00:44:45.640 be the

00:44:45.880 best thing

00:44:46.220 for that.

00:44:47.780 All right,

00:44:48.300 I'll be

00:44:48.540 putting some

00:44:49.020 more micro

00:44:49.520 lessons on

00:44:50.220 my locals

00:44:51.440 platform, so

00:44:53.700 the people

00:44:54.920 there will be

00:44:55.720 getting the

00:44:56.120 things that

00:44:56.480 will change

00:44:56.860 their lives,

00:44:58.440 and that

00:44:59.460 is all I

00:45:01.680 have for

00:45:01.980 today.

00:45:03.400 And I'll

00:45:03.980 talk to you

00:45:04.540 tomorrow.

00:45:05.600 after

00:45:06.320 I'll

00:45:12.200 end

00:45:15.380 tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - May 09, 2021

Episode 1370 Scott Adams： Elon on SNL, CNN as a Narcissist, Climate Data Versus Headlines, and More

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript