Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1540 Scott Adams： Persuasion Lessons Taken From Today's Headlines. Find Out What You've Been Doing Wrong

00:00:00.000 Wow. Wow. You made it. Good job, everybody. You made it to the best place in the universe

00:00:12.340 and just in time. What are the odds that you would have the space and the time correct?

00:00:19.800 Both of them, space and time. Very good. Because all of you are smarter than the average person

00:00:25.300 and you know that there's no such thing as time. There's only space time. Yeah. Yeah. Remember

00:00:30.480 to remind people that when they talk about time. Say, there's no time. Time? That's not

00:00:36.060 even a thing. Listen to some Einstein sometime. There's space time. Sure. But I didn't hear

00:00:40.940 you talk about space time, did I? Yeah. Don't be that person. But you can if you want to

00:00:47.720 be. Now, what would it take to make this amazing, amazing experience that we're all about to

00:00:53.540 have together? And no, stop tinkling. Stop. Stop. Some of you are already getting chills.

00:01:00.800 Don't don't peak too soon. Stay with me. Stay with me. This is going to get so good so fast.

00:01:07.180 You don't want to get ahead of me. But all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or

00:01:10.920 Chelsea Stein, a canteen drink or glass, a vessel of any kind, any kind this time. Fill it with

00:01:17.680 your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. Unparalleled.

00:01:24.760 It's called the simultaneous sip. It's going to happen now. And it makes everything better,

00:01:29.180 including your antibodies. Watch, watch, go.

00:01:35.440 Mmm. Ah. Antibodies. Yeah.

00:01:38.760 Let me ask you this. How many of you believe that hypnosis could improve your antibodies?

00:01:50.620 In the comments, without, don't Google it. No cheating. No Googling. How many of you think

00:01:56.900 that hypnosis could improve your antibodies? Seeing some yeses? Seeing some noes? How about

00:02:06.060 over on YouTube? I doubt that. 100%. Here's the answer. It can. It turns out it can. Surprising,

00:02:18.060 right? Now, the way that it does it is probably just by de-stressing you. Okay? Now it sounds

00:02:25.840 more realistic, right? Yeah. I don't think it's a placebo. I think it works because if you de-stress

00:02:33.260 yourself, you get stronger immune response. Is everybody on board with that simple claim

00:02:40.100 of fact? I think if you Google it, you'll see plenty of support for the idea that if you

00:02:45.440 get rid of your stress, your immune system can be a little bit optimized, right? There's

00:02:50.900 no doubt about that, is there? And is there any doubt that hypnosis could help you relax?

00:02:57.260 Not really. I mean, hypnosis will work better with some people than others, but there's no

00:03:03.620 such thing as somebody who could sit there quietly for 45 minutes listening to a hypnotist and not

00:03:09.400 come away a little bit relaxed, right? I don't think in the history of hypnosis, I've never heard

00:03:15.300 of an example of somebody who became more anxious because they got hypnotized. I mean, it's a big world.

00:03:21.380 I suppose it happened somewhere, maybe once. But yes, absolutely, hypnosis could improve your

00:03:29.880 immune response just by making you more relaxed. Now, could it do it more directly? I don't know.

00:03:37.140 I don't know. Because, you know, your brain and your body are kind of almost magical in the sense that

00:03:45.280 we don't understand how they work. I have a hypothesis that I've been working on for years

00:03:51.900 that your intentions can change your body state. Your intentions. Now, I don't know that that's true.

00:04:02.720 It's one of those things that it could be false pattern recognition or something. But it does feel

00:04:07.880 as though people's intentions end up manifesting in some physical way. Just an impression,

00:04:14.040 not based on any science or anything like that. But I would not rule out the possibility that some

00:04:21.560 people could be directly hypnotized to increase their immune response. I would guess maybe 20% of

00:04:29.700 the public. Because 20% is about the percentage that have extreme responses to hypnosis. So if the

00:04:39.100 mind-body connection is what we think it is, there's probably some way to turn up the antibody production

00:04:46.620 part. You know, if there's a brain connection, I'm not even sure if there is one beyond the relaxation

00:04:53.700 component. So anyway, I just put that out there because I was thinking of maybe doing that.

00:04:58.720 I could do a group hypnosis. Now, it wouldn't be as effective as one person working with one

00:05:06.500 subject. Because if you're working with one person, you adjust as you go to how they're responding.

00:05:12.720 But probably I could do a group hypnosis someday. I'd do a special live stream or record it. And

00:05:19.960 if I worked on enough people, you know, let's say I got, I don't know, let's say I went a little bit

00:05:26.960 viral and we got 100,000 people to watch it eventually. Do you think that out of 100,000 people,

00:05:33.340 I couldn't raise the antibody count on some of you? Because I would take that bet. I certainly

00:05:41.960 wouldn't say it's going to work on everybody. That would be kind of crazy. But if I do 100,000 people,

00:05:48.080 and they just, you know, take the time to sit through a hypnosis induction, and it won't be the

00:05:54.340 kind of hypnosis where you forget where you were, or, you know, I take control of your life and you

00:06:00.040 send me money or anything like that. It would just be relaxation. Just pure relaxation. I'm seeing

00:06:07.020 references to, is it Wim Hoffman? How do you say his first name? Wim, right? And he's, yeah, Wim Hoff.

00:06:15.620 So he's got a method of breathing, which I hear good things about all the time. I'm pretty sure

00:06:23.160 he's backed by science. I haven't looked into it in the depth that I need to. By the way, you know,

00:06:29.320 I always tell you that I have this weird life where it doesn't matter what story you're talking

00:06:36.600 about in the news, I have some connection to it. That's one of the reasons I think we live in a

00:06:42.240 simulation. Because it isn't possible, I could have so many connections to so many stories.

00:06:48.020 So, you know, you're talking about, you know, Wim Hoff, and, Wim Hoff, sorry. And I went to an event

00:06:55.820 one time in San Francisco, before I'd heard of him, or his method. And I was introduced to him. And,

00:07:04.180 you know, I didn't know anybody else there at the time. And I guess he didn't know too many people at

00:07:08.600 the time, or he wanted to talk to me. And I ended up chatting with him for a pretty long time. And

00:07:14.120 heard about his methods in person, which is weird, because I didn't know he was famous. I just thought

00:07:18.860 he was a guy talking about some breath control stuff. And I thought, oh, that's good. And then

00:07:23.580 it turns out he was, he was Wim Hoff. So he turns out to be one of the most, well, not one of,

00:07:30.820 the most famous person associated with this breathing technique. But I didn't know it at the time.

00:07:36.700 So is that the simulation? Like, how is it that I can keep meeting people, just by coincidence,

00:07:43.520 that are at the center of, like, all these big topics? It's really weird. Because that was a

00:07:49.820 completely random encounter. Well, maybe not totally random. All right. So how about California

00:07:57.900 and the West Coast? Let me give you an update of how we're doing. You know, you've heard we've got

00:08:01.860 problems in California. Has anybody heard of that? We got your homelessness, your high taxes,

00:08:06.360 you got your drugs, your crime, you got your massive forest fires, your lack of electricity.

00:08:12.400 Of course, we've got a drought and water shortage, a pandemic and runaway inflation.

00:08:18.080 But if nothing else hits us, I think we can handle it. I mean, we're a tough state. You know,

00:08:24.700 California is a tough state. You can make fun of us. Sure. But we're a tough state. We can handle

00:08:29.180 homelessness. Taxes, drugs, crimes, forest fires, lack of energy, no water, pandemic, runway inflation,

00:08:36.140 and traffic. We can handle all that. I just hope nothing else is coming our way.

00:08:41.220 All right. Let's check the headlines. Okay. There's a bomb cyclone coming our way in California.

00:08:47.580 A bomb cyclone. So I think we can conclude that California has pissed off God in some way that

00:08:59.260 is not entirely evident to me. But it's obvious we're cursed at this point. You know, you could

00:09:08.280 try to write this off as science or coincidence, but no, I think we're cursed. So the bomb cyclone's

00:09:15.920 coming this way. So far, the weather is disturbingly not bad. So far, it's just sort of a light rain

00:09:23.560 where I live. I'm in Northern California. Just sort of a light rain. But I feel like it's going to get

00:09:29.260 a lot worse really quickly and probably today. But we need the water. So if the bomb cyclone

00:09:35.880 washes some things away, but we get a lot of water, probably we came out ahead. All right. We've got to

00:09:43.360 talk about the Alec Baldwin situation. We know a little bit more. And I will tell you that

00:09:49.840 as the story emerges, you know, the fog of war starts clearing out. Let's see if your opinion about

00:09:58.100 the people involved changes. Now, one thing we know is that the young woman who is, or the young

00:10:05.620 they, I'll say the young they, who is handling the guns and was in charge of the safety of the guns

00:10:11.560 for the film, apparently was not very experienced. 24 years old and doesn't seem to be a member of

00:10:19.200 the NRA, but that's just a guess. And I guess the circumstances are that the gun, either that gun

00:10:27.660 or ones in the group had misfired a couple times. The crew had already complained about the safety

00:10:34.040 problems. And I guess the specific setup is that they were lining up a camera shot in which they wanted

00:10:41.480 to have the camera look down the barrel of the gun, or, you know, at least that view of the actor.

00:10:47.680 And so Alec Baldwin was instructed to aim the gun in the direction of the camera-ish, and it went off.

00:10:55.820 Now, what's still missing in the story, unless somebody has heard it, was, did he pull the trigger?

00:11:01.900 How does a gun misfire in the first place? Is there anybody who knows enough about firearms

00:11:09.160 to tell me how a gun would misfire? Somebody said it didn't, quote, go off. Yeah, we'll talk about

00:11:21.340 responsibility in a moment. Yeah, the way the news is talking about it is just delayed ignition of the

00:11:28.960 bullet. Hmm. You've got to pull the trigger, somebody says. It can't without the hammer striking.

00:11:39.380 But what if, now, is there any chance that the hammer was pulled back? There's no evidence of that,

00:11:46.900 right? So I think there's more news we need to learn about this. Not that that fact would

00:11:52.160 necessarily change what we think. But, so, let's say if we were based on what we know now,

00:11:59.000 let's do a little speculating. If it's true that Alec Baldwin was handed a gun and told that it was

00:12:08.060 cold, so he believed that it was blanks, and if he was told by the director who, or the director of

00:12:14.540 photography, I think it was, to point in that direction, probably the director said it as well,

00:12:20.460 and he believed that the gun had been checked out, and it was just lighting it up for a shoot,

00:12:27.900 how guilty do you think he is if the gun misfired? I don't know. I don't even know what that means,

00:12:36.600 to misfire. It was a revolver, right? Yeah. 100% guilty, everybody says. 100% guilty? 100% guilty.

00:12:49.640 Yeah, the NRA answer to that, if I could put it that way, you know, the gun owner answer,

00:12:55.580 and I've been having this conversation with someone else, and somebody was trying to suggest,

00:13:04.360 I won't name names because I don't want to bring in personalities, but would suggest that the

00:13:10.080 responsibility was at least partially, at least partially, the gun armorer person, the person

00:13:17.560 who was in charge of making sure it didn't have a loaded round, and what do you who actually know

00:13:23.420 about guns say to that? You say the same thing I said. It's 100% the responsibility of the person

00:13:30.620 who has it in their hand, even if somebody else screwed up. We're all on the same page on that,

00:13:38.800 right? It's always 100% responsibility of the person with the gun in their hand. Always. It's never 99.

00:13:47.080 It's always 100%. It's also 100% of the person who handed it to them. So if one person has 100%

00:13:56.480 of responsibility, the person who has it in their hand, that doesn't absolve anybody else. You know,

00:14:01.800 they have their own kind of responsibility. Likewise, if the person who handed it to them

00:14:06.240 is 100% wrong, it doesn't change in any way the actor's own responsibility. Now, I certainly feel

00:14:16.320 for him because the context of how it happened wasn't an ordinary gun ownership thing. He had delegated

00:14:22.820 responsibility. He thought that was good enough. It wasn't. It wasn't. So let me ask you this

00:14:28.660 question. How many NRA members would it have taken to be on that crew to have prevented this with a

00:14:37.220 pretty high degree of confidence? You couldn't be sure. But how many would it take anywhere on the

00:14:43.180 crew? And we'll even say just the lowest member of the crew. You know, somebody, the gaffers or I

00:14:49.500 don't know, whoever is the lowest member of the crew. Yeah, yeah. Everybody who understands guns

00:14:54.780 says the same answer. One. Exactly one. Do you know, what would you have done if you knew that this

00:15:00.980 group of guns had misfired twice? You would take them away. You'd probably take them away, wouldn't you?

00:15:09.960 Like physically take them away? Now, I guess some people walked out. Was that the right answer?

00:15:15.940 I think walking out is what you do if you're not a member of the NRA. All right. Now, of course, I'm

00:15:21.540 I'm being a little hyperbolic. You know, in the real world, people don't have as much power as they

00:15:26.740 might want to. Depends on personalities, etc. But I like to think that if there would have been even

00:15:33.620 one NRA member there, they would have just gone nuts on that place. Right? The amount of energy

00:15:43.040 somebody who knew what they were talking about, gun wise, would have put into that situation,

00:15:49.180 it should be a lot. Like, I don't think it would have just been talking to the director.

00:15:53.800 Right? I don't think it would have been just talking to the boss. I don't think it would have

00:15:57.940 been just complaining. I think they would have physically stood in front of the guns. Right?

00:16:03.200 I think they would have stood in front of the guns and say, for safety reasons,

00:16:08.640 nobody's getting near these things. Am I wrong? You put one NRA member there, doesn't matter what

00:16:16.880 their role is, they would walk and stand in front of the gun supply and say, no, we're done here.

00:16:21.400 These aren't going anywhere. Right? Now, you would have to have a certain kind of personality to do

00:16:26.780 that, you know, certain risk profile. But I'd like to know the answer to the question if they had

00:16:32.380 one NRA member. Just one. I'll bet the answer is no. You can't be sure, but I'll bet.

00:16:41.120 All right. If Alec Baldwin has responsibility, obviously, it would be in the sense that he didn't

00:16:49.160 put the right people in charge. He was a producer. So I do think he's going to have some,

00:16:55.120 he's probably his insurance company, or he are going to be on the hook for a lot, I think.

00:17:00.320 But it will be an interesting case. We'll probably learn a lot. All right. I've been noticing with

00:17:09.760 happiness that the internet dads are getting pretty involved in the fentanyl question. Do you know who

00:17:18.000 the internet dads are? I use that term loosely to include people like myself. Now, it's not my own

00:17:25.480 description of me, but it's other people's description of a set of people who, somewhat

00:17:32.400 accidentally, nobody set out to do this, but became kind of almost dad-like influences to people

00:17:41.080 who maybe needed a little extra or didn't have any. You know, I would put Mike Cernovich in that

00:17:45.780 category, put myself in that category. And you can name a bunch of other people who easily feel like

00:17:52.800 internet dads at this point, just giving you some, or at least trying to give you some life advice.

00:17:58.420 And we see them getting more involved lately in the fentanyl question. I saw, I saw Michael

00:18:07.460 Schellenberger is going at it hard, especially, and he's got a new book, San Francisco. I want to get

00:18:13.760 him on and do a book review, but I don't want to do that with a live stream. I'll have to do that

00:18:17.980 off live. But, you know, the question is getting bigger and bigger, and the right people are talking

00:18:25.140 about it. And I wanted to run through, for the benefit of my audience, yeah, Jack Murphy, another

00:18:30.540 good example. I'm going to run through this, a bunch of myths that the internet dads don't have, right?

00:18:40.700 This is things that the people you're calling the internet dads, this is stuff they understand,

00:18:48.020 but maybe the public doesn't, okay? And so I just want to run through this. And I'll start with this.

00:18:55.660 I asked this question on Twitter, and of course it's an unscientific poll. I said, is your life deeply

00:19:01.980 constrained or ruined by a drug addict or alcoholic who is close to you? Close to you, right? How many people

00:19:09.960 in my unscientific poll, which are mostly conservatives, by the way, mostly conservatives,

00:19:14.680 that's the people who follow me on Twitter? If you're new to me, I'm not, I don't identify as

00:19:19.700 conservative, but my audience does. 22% of them, last I checked, said yes. 22% have their lives

00:19:27.480 deeply constrained or ruined. Deeply constrained or ruined. 22%. Deeply constrained or ruined. 22%.

00:19:39.460 Do you feel that? You can't do anything to 22% of the country without a big effect on the rest of

00:19:49.300 it, right? There's nothing that affects that many people that doesn't affect the rest of it. And keep

00:19:53.500 in mind, this is my conservative followers. You don't think this is a little bit worse on the left?

00:19:58.940 So let's say it's a quarter of the public is being influenced by somebody addicted. Probably 10% or more

00:20:09.180 are addicted to... How many people are addicted? Does anybody know that? What percentage of the general

00:20:15.980 population are addicted? 10%? Is it more now? I mean, it could be 50% depending on what drugs you're

00:20:24.880 including. You know, if you throw in cigarettes and alcohol and everything else. Yeah, I feel like

00:20:30.440 it's 20, 30% is what it feels like, depending on how you count it. But so that's how bad it is. Now,

00:20:38.100 let me tell you the myths that people have around there now that you know how big it is.

00:20:43.460 A lot of people, and you'll see this on internet, will tell you that good parenting will save your

00:20:49.620 teen. Good parenting will keep your teen from getting into trouble with fentanyl or overdosing.

00:20:58.200 No. No. That is a hard no. I do believe there are some edge cases where maybe somebody's a little

00:21:08.000 bit inclined, but you know, the best parenting in the world could keep them safe. So yes, in the narrow,

00:21:15.340 narrow sense that there are some kids and some families in some specific situations where doing

00:21:20.980 all the right things parent-wise would help. So you should definitely try to do all the right

00:21:25.880 things parent-wise. It could help, but it would depend mostly on your kid. Do you think you could

00:21:34.380 have taken my stepson and fixed him up? I'm going to tell you what that would have looked like in a

00:21:40.460 minute. Because if you think you could have fixed my stepson by your good parenting, my God, you

00:21:48.340 haven't met many people. All right. So let me clear that up for you in a minute. All right. Here's some

00:21:56.520 more myths. Counseling would help. Get a good therapist, get a good counselor, and they can fix

00:22:02.000 things. Nope. Nope. Do you know why the counselor doesn't help? I'm just going to use my now deceased

00:22:08.880 stepson as my example. We're going to make you go to counseling. I don't want to go to counseling. We're

00:22:16.560 going to make you go to counseling. All right. But when I'm done, I'm going to go back to using. No, we're

00:22:23.020 going to make you go to counseling, and that will fix you, and then you won't use. Okay. I'm just telling you that

00:22:28.420 when I'm done with the counseling, I'm going to go back to doing drugs and drinking and stuff. No. The

00:22:33.820 counseling. Counseling. So you send them to counseling. He goes through the hours, and the moment he walks out,

00:22:39.920 he uses again. Just like he said. Exactly like he said. Now you say to yourself, all right, dealing with you like an

00:22:46.100 adult isn't going to work. All right. We got to take this to the next level. I'm going to start punishing you if you're

00:22:53.540 hanging around with the people who use, or we find out you're using, or we discover anything in your

00:22:58.540 room, right? We're going to punish you until you stop the behavior. Number one, you're grounded.

00:23:04.160 All right. I'm going to kill myself. I'm going to kill myself because I'm grounded.

00:23:11.660 What if he's tried twice?

00:23:15.120 What do you do? What do you good parents do? All you smart ones. He's tried to kill himself twice.

00:23:21.260 Like literally. Literally twice. So you're going to lock him in his room. He says, if you put me in

00:23:26.660 here, I'm going to kill myself. How's that? You're good parents? You're going to do that? How's that

00:23:32.200 work? Take away his phone. He says, I'm going to kill myself. And you know what? He means it. He means

00:23:40.540 it. He's not bluffing. Tried it twice. Right? How uncommon is it for your addict to say they'll kill

00:23:48.600 themselves and mean it? Not uncommon. And how many of you have heard this, this? It's not uncommon and

00:23:56.060 it's real. And they will try to kill themselves. It's absolutely real. And you know why you know

00:24:01.440 that they will try to kill themselves? Because their drug addiction is basically slow suicide.

00:24:07.820 They're already killing themselves. You don't have to wonder if they have the mental state to kill

00:24:13.080 themselves. You're watching it happen in real time. They are killing themselves. It's just slow.

00:24:18.480 And they're taking the chance that they'll die and they don't care. Did he care that he might die of

00:24:23.400 an overdose? He didn't. He didn't. Sometimes he would act like he did. But honestly, he didn't.

00:24:31.940 And you could tell. How soon did I know I would have an addiction problem with my stepson?

00:24:39.800 How young was he when I knew I'd have the problem? About five. About five years old, it was obvious.

00:24:49.680 You could see it coming like a train. Because at five years old, he would tell us how much he wanted

00:24:54.720 to drink to oblivion. At six years old, still saying, yeah, I just want to drink till I pass out.

00:25:01.200 Can't wait to do drugs. He would say it explicitly and often, and there was nothing you could do to talk

00:25:07.600 him out of it. He was born to do drugs. I mean, I've never seen anybody who was so intent on doing

00:25:13.840 everything wrong. Secondly, his personality was such that if anything was the right thing you're

00:25:20.040 supposed to do, he would do the other thing and aggressively. It wouldn't matter what you told him.

00:25:25.760 You'd say, if you do this, you're in big trouble. If you do this, you're not. You would do the big

00:25:30.360 trouble thing every time. Every time. No exceptions. What do you do with that? All right. So you say

00:25:37.420 to yourself, my God, you're going to have to take it up to the next level. You're going to have to

00:25:41.340 actually take him to some kind of facility, some kind of program where they're really like, you know,

00:25:48.340 maybe it's like boot camp for kids or something. You know, you've heard of these where they can

00:25:52.320 they can sort of force the kid into a situation where they can't leave and, you know, they're going

00:25:58.920 to really get the tough love they need and they won't have access to the drugs. So just sign them up

00:26:04.140 for one of the programs, right? Right? Because that's all you got left. How many of you would

00:26:12.180 say, okay, because most of you are second guessing now, I know. So those of you are second guessing

00:26:19.140 me, how many of you say that at this point, your only thing you can do is to sign them up

00:26:24.760 for some kind of a tough program where they basically would take away his freedom for a while.

00:26:29.460 But, you know, at least it would be tough love. How many think that's a good idea? No matter what

00:26:36.440 you call it, you could call it military school or whatever you want to call it. But how many think

00:26:40.160 that's a good idea? I have to swear at you now, with all due respect. I have to curse.

00:26:51.880 There's no such fucking thing. The thing you think will fix it doesn't exist. There is no fucking

00:27:01.940 program that you can take a California teenager to. None. Zero. Nothing. You have no legal recourse.

00:27:11.040 You have no asset. No money in the fucking world. I could have taken five million fucking dollars

00:27:18.840 and put it toward this problem. It would have made zero difference. There's no place you can

00:27:24.180 take them. No facility exists. No medical treatment. No path. No person. No expert. Nothing.

00:27:32.260 You're on your fucking own as a parent. And you don't have anything you can do except wait

00:27:38.700 and watch and prepare to bury your fucking kid. That's all you have. You get that?

00:27:46.160 Now, those of you saying, but, you know, screw the kid. Free will. It's his own fault.

00:27:53.740 If you think that, you don't know anything about addicts. You don't know anything about human

00:27:58.260 nature. You don't know anything about psychology. And you don't know anything about physics. And

00:28:03.060 you don't know anything about psychology. But a lot of you have that feeling. No. People don't

00:28:11.700 have free will to stop drugs. It has to be done by somebody else. Now, some people can

00:28:17.880 be, find themselves in the situation in which they hit bottom. And then the situation is

00:28:24.300 changed. And then sometimes they can get better on their own. But there's nothing you can do.

00:28:29.900 You can't do that. Sometimes it happens by accident. And even, you know, it's not good,

00:28:34.620 but it happens. But you can't make that happen. You have no ability whatsoever. All right? Addicts

00:28:42.040 do what addicts do, and you can't change it. That's it. All right. Other people say, well,

00:28:49.900 you could at least stay away from fentanyl. I mean, you could at least make sure you don't

00:28:54.300 do any fentanyl. No, you cannot. The people dying of fentanyl did not know it was in their

00:29:00.300 products or did not know how much of it was in their products. They thought they were doing

00:29:04.840 cocaine. They thought they were doing Xanax. Or even they thought they were doing fake Xanax,

00:29:09.020 but they didn't think it was fentanyl. They're doing other stuff and thinking they're not getting

00:29:13.860 fentanyl. Or if they are, their friend took it, so it must be okay. And then they die. No,

00:29:19.880 you cannot avoid fentanyl if you're an addict. If you're an addict, you're going to take drugs,

00:29:26.400 and it's going to be in the drugs. That's the whole story. You can say to yourself, as I said

00:29:32.280 to my son a few weeks before he died, I had lunch with him, and I said, promise me just one thing.

00:29:38.840 You won't take street drugs that you don't know what's in them. That's the only thing I'm going to

00:29:44.320 ask, because I feel like I could get that from you. And he said, yes, absolutely. Because I understand

00:29:51.700 that the street drugs very often have fentanyl in them, and I understand that fentanyl will kill

00:29:57.080 me. So I will not take those drugs. And then he took those drugs and died a few weeks later.

00:30:09.280 Here's the other big myth. You had good results with your kid, so therefore you know how to parent,

00:30:18.040 and I don't. I'm sorry. If you had good results with your kid, you might be a great parent. I

00:30:26.460 wouldn't take that away from you. But it's because you had a good kid, right? The kid is what makes

00:30:33.720 the thing turn out well. You could ruin it, but you're not really the one who's making it happen,

00:30:40.640 right? The genetics of the kid and your situation in general are going to be 80% of what happens to

00:30:47.320 that kid. You're about 20% tops. So how about a little humility about how much you contributed,

00:30:54.340 although your genes might be good. If your genetics are the reason you got a good result,

00:30:59.400 good for you. But it wasn't your parenting. Your parenting could break something, but it's not

00:31:04.420 going to fix an addict. All right. That's what I want to say on that topic. Sorry that was such a

00:31:15.600 downer. But I think it's important. It's a downer, but important. All right. Do you remember I've

00:31:21.980 given you some ways to predict things? Some of them don't make any sense, but they're fun to watch.

00:31:27.840 One of the ways to predict that doesn't make any sense, but it's very predictive, or at least it

00:31:33.580 seems like it. You know, it's anecdotal. So maybe it's just confirmation bias. Is that the best story

00:31:39.480 usually wins? The best story usually wins. So if, let's say there's a competition of some kind,

00:31:46.400 let's say the best story is Tom Brady getting kicked off of his football team that he's won a

00:31:53.620 bunch of championships on. He's way too old. He goes to another team that wasn't expected to win,

00:31:59.340 and he takes them all the way to the Super Bowl and beats his old team. I don't know if that happened

00:32:04.160 exactly, but I'm giving you an example of something that if you saw it developing, you'd say, oh, you

00:32:08.900 know, the best story here, the best story here would be if this aging hero had, you know, one more win.

00:32:16.740 And then he does. And the number of times you can say, you know, the best, the coolest outcome here

00:32:23.120 would be, and then you watch how often the coolest outcome happens. So I say this because Raul Davis,

00:32:31.200 Twitter user and CEO branding expert, had reminded me when, I guess the World Series was on, or the,

00:32:39.920 yeah, is that right? I don't watch sports. The World Series just happened, right? I think.

00:32:47.380 But before it happened, he mentioned to me, Raul did, that Major League Baseball had pulled the game

00:32:56.580 from, the All-Star game from Atlanta, but then it was Atlanta who was in the World Series. And so Raul said,

00:33:03.540 you know, the best story would be that the All-Star game gets pulled from Atlanta, and then Atlanta

00:33:08.500 goes and wins the World Series.

00:33:11.080 Oh, is that, wait, am I reading the story wrong?

00:33:22.980 Oh, they responded with the first World Series. Does that mean that the World Series is going

00:33:27.260 to be held there? As opposed to, oh, so they're just in it. It's the playoffs that just happened?

00:33:35.380 Oh, so it's the playoffs. So, all right, so I got this story wrong. That's how much of a nada sports

00:33:41.340 guy I am. So they got into the World Series. They haven't won the World Series, right? All right,

00:33:48.460 so if you were to predict based on best story wins, you'd predict they win. So thank you for

00:33:56.480 correcting me. So here's another example of the, you know, I just talked about this, that collectively

00:34:01.000 we form sort of a brain, like an intelligence. You know, I have some general notions, and then

00:34:07.080 you fix them or correct them or refine them. It's really kind of interesting watching literally

00:34:13.480 a new form of intelligence. Has this ever existed before? Because technologically, this couldn't

00:34:20.780 have existed before, right? At least not in this scale. It's like, how many people are watching?

00:34:26.760 Let's see, we've got 2,100 over there and 500 here. So let's say we've got 2,700 people

00:34:33.860 who are this collective brain at the moment. Kind of cool. Anyway, I don't think there's

00:34:40.540 any reason that the best story always wins, except I'll speculate. If it's true, and if it

00:34:47.940 were some way that you could actually, you know, measure it to see if it's true, I think it

00:34:54.000 would be because people are story creatures. That we're also trained by stories, maybe naturally

00:35:02.740 because we evolved that way, but also because we reinforce it by reading stories and watching

00:35:07.240 movies and hearing stories. So we're just story people. And because we're story people, we

00:35:12.400 all have a sense of what a good story is, right? You can tell if the movie has a good story

00:35:17.540 or not. Everybody can tell that. So I feel like we're all biased toward making the better

00:35:23.140 story happen, even if it's not good for us. Oh yeah, McGregor didn't beat the boxer. Yeah.

00:35:28.940 That was a good example, although there was such a mismatch in talent that that's probably,

00:35:34.760 you know, the exception to the rule kind of thing. Yeah. If there's a gigantic difference

00:35:39.840 in talent, yeah, then it's not predictive. Um, all right. So follow the money works that

00:35:49.900 way too. Um, I won't give you the example, but recently there was an example where something

00:35:54.440 happened that wasn't because of the money as far as I could tell, but the money would

00:36:00.000 have predicted it. So watch how many times that happens. There's somebody who does something

00:36:05.040 and you're pretty sure it wasn't because of the money, but coincidentally, it also was

00:36:11.900 where the money would have suggested things would have gone. It's, it's almost an unbreakable

00:36:17.020 pattern. Joe Desenia's program would have fixed Scott's kids. No, it wouldn't have because

00:36:25.140 he wouldn't have gotten in it. All right. All right. Here's a persuasion secret I learned

00:36:32.940 as a data analyst. So I spent many years in the corporate world, uh, analyzing data and

00:36:39.380 then explaining it to management and whoever needed to see it. So my job was to take complicated

00:36:45.580 things and simplify them so that somebody could make decisions. Now, uh, I apparently was born

00:36:53.640 with some kind of, uh, aptitude for simplification because you see that in all my work. So it seems

00:37:00.460 like I have some kind of natural talent for that, I guess, I mean, based on observation,

00:37:04.620 I would think so. So cartooning is about simplifying, uh, writing well is about simplifying. And I would

00:37:13.240 say that doing this is about simplifying. Well, knowing when to expand and when to simplify. So

00:37:18.620 it's a little more complicated, but, um, a good data analysis visualization puts you in charge.

00:37:30.020 Now here's something you've never, most of you have never realized, but I'll bet. So I'm going to ask

00:37:34.820 the people who, uh, who have corporate experience or big organization experience. So those of you with

00:37:40.880 corporate experience, I need you to back me on this because those of you who don't have it,

00:37:44.700 aren't going to believe this at all. All right. It's going to be obvious to corporate people,

00:37:48.960 not obvious to the rest of you. The person who makes the best chart is in control. That's your

00:37:58.180 leader. The person who makes the best visualization. Now when I say best, uh, look at all the yeses.

00:38:06.540 So, uh, all the people with corporate experience are agreeing. You can see it go by true, true,

00:38:11.980 true, true. It's one of those things people don't talk about, but it's true. I'll give you an

00:38:17.760 example. So when I was doing data analysis, uh, I was in charge of, uh, the data analysis to do a

00:38:23.880 lease or purchase for mainframes and servers and the backend technology for the bank. And so the

00:38:30.580 technical people would say, you know, what they needed. And then they would say, we could get it

00:38:34.760 this way or that way. We could lease it or buy it. And we could get it from IBM or somebody else.

00:38:38.680 And then I would take that information and do the analysis and figure out which one it was.

00:38:44.380 Well, as I was doing that work, I thought, God, it's too complicated to figure out what to do when.

00:38:50.820 And so I'll make a visualization that shows all of our equipment that's coming off lease

00:38:55.920 or is ready to be replaced. And you'll have a timeline that's, you know, a three-dimensional

00:39:01.300 timeline where you can really, really plan, you know, when you're going to be, um, having to retire

00:39:08.380 a lot of stuff. And when you don't, because if you had to retire a lot of stuff, you could have a

00:39:13.940 capital budget that, that, uh, that was appropriate to how much had to be replaced. Now this didn't

00:39:20.040 exist, right? There was no existence of a good visualization to show what to do when. So I took

00:39:28.540 it to my boss and said, Hey, I'd like to show this to the senior vice president in charge of

00:39:32.400 everything and, uh, you know, show him that there's a path to figure out how to do this, these upgrades

00:39:38.960 in a more rational way. My boss said, uh, you know, nobody asked you to do that. And so, you know,

00:39:47.480 nobody asked you to do that, right? The boss did not ask for this. So I'm not going to show him this

00:39:52.540 because he didn't ask for it, but I was persuasive. They said, you know, what, he might like it.

00:39:58.340 Maybe you could just pass it, you know, pass it across his desk. So she went to the meeting,

00:40:04.900 she, uh, did hand it to him and he said, my God, this is the first time I've understood what's going

00:40:10.380 on. This is perfect. Do more of this. And from that moment, who was in charge of deciding what

00:40:19.060 equipment in the bank got replaced? I was, I was accidentally. I mean, it wasn't my plan,

00:40:27.420 but from the moment I was the one in charge of the visualization, I was the one who determined

00:40:32.900 what we did from that point on. Because I said, well, two years from now, you'd better make your

00:40:38.740 budget X because if you don't, you won't have enough. Right? So who was in charge? Was the senior

00:40:45.400 vice president in charge? Well, on paper he was, and he certainly had an option of doing things that

00:40:50.960 didn't make sense. He would have been fired, but he had the option because he was in charge.

00:40:55.800 But who was really in charge? The person who controlled the information and the person who

00:41:02.260 put it in a form that basically told you what to do. Right? Because once you knew that you had to

00:41:09.900 replace these in this date, well, you sort of had to. His options were constrained by what I allowed him

00:41:18.780 to know. I was in charge. Now, everybody who works in the corporate office knows this dynamic.

00:41:24.160 You know it's not the boss in charge. They're completely captive to the data.

00:41:30.440 So let's look at the question of the supply chain. I believe that since we have a leaderless situation

00:41:39.340 in particular, we don't even know who's in charge of fixing it. Right? Is it Pete Buttigieg? I don't

00:41:45.160 know. Or is he in charge of some of it, but not all of it? The states are mostly in charge.

00:41:51.780 I don't know. Do you? So we have basically a leaderless situation that's one of our biggest

00:41:57.200 problems. Somebody could take control of the situation with one good visualization.

00:42:05.120 Now, I have in my mind a sense of what it might be, but I'll tell you what it doesn't look like.

00:42:11.560 What it doesn't look like is the visualizations I've seen so far. The visualizations I've seen so

00:42:17.900 far are treating all of the various variables as somewhat the same. Meaning, here's a list of all

00:42:25.280 the reasons that we have a problem. It's just a list. A list of all the problems doesn't do anything.

00:42:35.120 Because you don't know which ones are the big ones. And even if you knew which ones are the big ones,

00:42:40.580 are they the ones you can fix? Or should you fix the little ones because they're fixable? And at

00:42:46.520 least you can do that. Right? A good visualization would answer all those questions. A good visualization

00:42:53.440 would show you something like a visual presentation of the problem. You know, that it may be in a

00:43:00.860 linear fashion of things go from here to here to here. And then it would have a sizing or possibly

00:43:07.240 a color indication of where the big opportunities are. And maybe different indications for both.

00:43:14.700 So it could be that there's a big problem. So that would show as a big bubble.

00:43:21.280 But maybe there's nothing you can do about it. Because you can't attack it first. But maybe there's

00:43:27.360 a smaller problem that is easy to get at that would fix the bigger problem if you could fix the

00:43:33.720 smaller one. Maybe. That's what the visualization would tell you. But here's the magic part.

00:43:40.200 Suppose you had the visualization with bubbles of different colors and sizes to tell you both

00:43:45.500 priority and whether or not there's something you can do about it. But also each one was labeled with

00:43:51.540 whose problem it is or who's in charge. And you label the biggest one, nobody in charge. And you publish it.

00:44:03.800 What happens? Well, if it becomes viral, because it's good, right? If it's not a really good

00:44:10.880 visualization, nothing happens. So you have to make a distinction between a bad visualization where

00:44:16.520 nothing happens and a great visualization, which people are capable of doing, right?

00:44:22.460 Ian Martizis, if I always pronounce your name right, wrong, sorry. But Ian, if you've seen his work on

00:44:29.220 here regarding COVID and stuff, if you see a professional data visualization person work,

00:44:36.140 it blows your freaking mind, right? Because you immediately realize how good, how not good you

00:44:42.700 are at it. I did it for a living, right? I did it for a living. And I'm not even close to how good a good,

00:44:50.720 a really good commercial visualizer would do it. Now, if somebody could do that and label it that the

00:44:57.080 biggest problem is leaderless, what would happen? Well, the news would say, oh, I finally understand this

00:45:04.060 for the first time. And what things do the news report? Does the news report things that the

00:45:10.100 reporters understand? Or does the news report things that they can't explain? Which one do they prefer

00:45:16.880 doing? Okay, obviously, rhetorical question. Reporters will report things they can report and

00:45:26.700 understand. If the data visualizer hands them that, they're all going to use it. They're all

00:45:34.440 going to use it, because it'll be the first time they understand it. If you can be the first person

00:45:39.460 to explain it to a journalist, you own the journalist. The journalist always owns the politicians,

00:45:48.020 because the politicians have to do things that will sound good when they're explained in the press,

00:45:51.820 or explain why they're not, right? So if you don't understand how power works, and by the way,

00:45:59.420 I have this conversation with a lot of people. A lot of people don't understand how power works.

00:46:04.820 They really don't. They imagine that the person who's in the box that has the job CEO,

00:46:11.300 they imagine they have the power, and in many ways they do. But it's such a simplified understanding

00:46:16.360 of power that you can really get off track. Here's the thing I say about the... everybody's

00:46:24.100 annoyed about the lockdowns and everything. And they're saying, oh, our government, damn our

00:46:31.160 government for requiring this. Nothing like that is happening. Not in my world. In my world,

00:46:38.580 the government isn't making you do jacks yet. Nothing. Your fellow citizens are making you do

00:46:44.060 that. Do you not realize that? It's not the government at all doing it. It's your fellow

00:46:50.900 citizens. If they did not support the government, it just wouldn't be happening, right? You have to

00:46:56.220 have some, like, solid percentage of support, or the government can't make you do anything.

00:47:01.040 If you think that convincing the government to change their mind is a productive path,

00:47:06.900 you're so wrong. You have to convince the other citizens, because they're in charge.

00:47:13.180 They're in charge. The government is not in charge of you wearing a frickin' mask. Be serious. Wake up.

00:47:22.300 They've never been in charge of that. They can't be in charge of that. It's not physically

00:47:26.880 possible. Your fellow citizens are in charge of that. They've decided by a large enough majority

00:47:34.860 that you're going to wear a mask for a while in some places. In other places, they decided not.

00:47:42.060 In Florida, apparently, they've decided they're not going to wear masks. So stop thinking that the

00:47:48.820 government's in power. They're not. Never will be. All right. So if we could get a good data analysis,

00:47:59.880 maybe we could fix this problem with the ports. And by the way, some of that data analysis might

00:48:04.840 focus on the empty containers. And I'm still seeing reports that it's not the empty container problem.

00:48:12.920 My belief is that the only credible person says that is the problem, that it probably is,

00:48:19.100 at least in the West Coast. Other places may be different. All right. Here's another one for you.

00:48:26.540 Dr. Anarchy on Twitter, who is very well named. No Twitter user has ever had a more appropriate

00:48:35.460 handle. He's Dr. Anarchy, not his real name. MD.

00:48:39.660 And the MD part is what gives you the anarchy in this. So here's his tweet. I'm going to let you

00:48:46.820 think about it for a moment. And be careful. All right. Just think about it for a moment before

00:48:53.100 you react. Here's the tweet. Horse dewormer and anti-malaria drugs have saved more lives than

00:49:00.340 lockdowns and masks. Just let it settle in.

00:49:06.340 Diabolical. Diabolical. Here's what you might have assumed until I warned you that there was a trick

00:49:19.020 coming. Horse dewormer and anti-malaria drugs have, in fact, saved more lives because he didn't

00:49:25.960 specify COVID. He didn't specify COVID. It is legitimately a fact that 100% of science would agree

00:49:33.820 with that horse dewormer and anti-malaria drugs have saved more lives than lockdowns and masks.

00:49:40.620 It's probably, I mean, I assume the data would back it up. But, you know, we can't know that for

00:49:46.680 sure. But what's diabolical about it is, first of all, you don't know for sure that that would even

00:49:50.860 be true. But second, you just leapt to the conclusion that he was only talking about COVID.

00:49:56.280 But he didn't specify. So was he? I don't know. I don't know. I'm not sure what he intended,

00:50:04.640 which is what makes it so diabolical.

00:50:06.440 But here's what you also need to know. And I'll give you a story here. So Michael Schellenberg was

00:50:21.020 tweeting about this today, that Britain's climate policy rested on the assumption that in 2050 there

00:50:28.060 would be just seven days per year when wind turbines produced less than 10% of the potential.

00:50:35.280 So the assumption is that wind turbines would be a good deal for Great Britain because the wind mostly

00:50:42.320 blows there most of the time. But in 2021, there have already been 65 such days. And in 2016,

00:50:52.580 there were 78 of them. All right, they're hoping for seven, and they got 10 times as many.

00:50:58.660 10 times as many. All right. So here's my persuasion lesson for the day.

00:51:11.200 Any data analysis has two parts, the data and then the assumptions. So if you've got data and you've

00:51:21.700 got assumptions and you put them together, then you've got a result that you could just... Let's

00:51:28.900 say the data is 100% accurate. And so you do the analysis with 100% accurate data. And let's say

00:51:38.000 you're also good at math and analysis. So your math and your analysis are spot on, no mistakes. And the

00:51:46.400 data, which is weird, is 100% perfect. So how good is your outcome? How good is your result? 100% good data

00:51:55.720 and 100% good analysis. Anybody? Anybody? How good is it? The correct answer is zero. No credibility

00:52:08.820 whatsoever. Because do you know what makes your analysis come out the way it comes out? Your

00:52:16.060 assumptions. Your assumptions. Every objective data analysis except maybe randomized controlled trials

00:52:26.420 in some situation. But as soon as you get away from that, as soon as you get away from the randomized

00:52:31.520 controlled trials, it's all subjective. It's all subjective. Because somebody picked the assumptions.

00:52:38.120 And whoever picked the assumptions knew that if they picked them differently, they get a different

00:52:43.420 outcome. So whoever picks the assumptions decides what the outcome is. Why do I know that? Because

00:52:49.700 that was my job for years. My job was data analysis, in which some of it was data, a lot of it was

00:52:56.840 estimates, and a lot of it was assumptions. And I could make it come out any way I wanted. It didn't matter

00:53:03.880 what the analysis was, I could make it come out good or bad, just by changing the assumptions.

00:53:09.440 I'm going to tell you something I did that I'm not proud of. I don't know if I've ever said this in

00:53:16.120 public before. I'm not proud of this. But it really happened. So when I was working for the phone

00:53:23.220 company, and I was also doing Dilbert in my spare time, my reputation as the Dilbert guy started

00:53:28.880 climbing. So people knew that I was, you know, mocking corporations at the same time I was working

00:53:34.660 for one. Well, as you can imagine, this was not popular with at least one member of senior management,

00:53:39.780 who learned that I was mocking big companies while working in his organization. So he told my

00:53:46.080 boss's boss to fire me immediately, because he heard I'd been saying some things in public

00:53:51.400 about management in general, not my management, just about managers and management. And to his

00:53:59.540 credit, my boss's boss, who was, let's see, he was a vice president, I guess. The vice president

00:54:07.200 told me later, I didn't know about it at the time, but he told me, I don't know, a year or two later,

00:54:12.640 that he had been asked to fire me. And he talked his boss out of it. And I didn't hear the exact

00:54:17.760 conversation, but I think it went like this. He said, no, no, no, we can't fire him for having a

00:54:22.440 sense of humor. You can't fire somebody for having an opinion and, you know, being, let's say, humorously

00:54:29.440 hyperbolic about it. You don't fire people for that. What you do is you move them onto projects,

00:54:36.880 and they'll quit on their own. You just give them a really bad project. They'll quit on their own. You

00:54:41.880 don't want to fire them for that. So I was moved. Now, I don't know that that conversation happened.

00:54:47.380 I do know that I was, instead of fired, I was transferred to a doomed project.

00:54:54.600 Now, this is the way corporations sometimes fire people. They'll move you to a project that has an

00:55:00.160 end date. And then when the project is over, they say, you know, we would love to put you back into

00:55:05.680 some other department, but we've got a hiring freeze on. So everybody in the project is done working at

00:55:12.000 this company. Yeah, the special assignment. So I was put on a special assignment with at least one

00:55:18.940 other person who was in the same boat. He was also just this close to being fired, but they said, nah,

00:55:24.180 we won't fire you. You've been a good employee up till now. So we'll put you on the doomed project.

00:55:29.200 It'll take care of itself. Guess what the doomed project was?

00:55:33.240 It was our job to do an analysis of whether the phone company should invest, I don't know,

00:55:40.260 some billions of dollars in a new technology called ISDN. Has anybody heard of it? Those of

00:55:47.680 you who were working in tech back in those days? Now, how good was ISDN? I want you to watch this in

00:55:54.800 the comments. Watch this. For those of you who lived through those times, and especially those of you

00:55:59.880 who were engineers or techies, how good was ISDN? And at the time, did you know it was the future?

00:56:09.260 It was absolute crap. It was probably one of the worst technologies ever made.

00:56:16.300 But it was the only thing that the phone company had or thought they had as an option for high-speed

00:56:21.120 data. And the phone company thought they had to be in the high-speed data business, because they kind

00:56:25.720 of did. But they didn't have a good option. They just had this bad technology. So they put me in

00:56:31.400 charge of deciding whether they should do ISDN and spend billions of dollars in making that like a

00:56:38.500 critical part of the business. Now, keep in mind that they had already decided they were going to do

00:56:43.820 it, because that's usually how it works. So management had decided they have to be in the business of

00:56:49.120 high-speed data. They only had one option. It was going to be ISDN. But they needed somebody,

00:56:55.220 my project, to say they were making the right decision. Well, at this point, I knew my career

00:57:03.560 was pretty much over. And I was not too happy with my employer. How do you think the analysis went?

00:57:12.440 Well, I recall giving the presentation, and it's probably the funniest thing I've ever done that

00:57:17.300 nobody laughed at. Are you ready? The funniest thing I've ever done that nobody laughed at.

00:57:25.080 I stood in front of the senior management of, you know, as an SVP and VP's senior management to make

00:57:32.300 these billion-dollar decisions. Billion-dollar decisions. And I gave them my PowerPoint presentation,

00:57:38.440 and I said, this ISDN would be a great thing. This could be great. But I have to tell you my

00:57:46.960 assumptions. You have to understand the assumptions, because otherwise the analysis, you know, depends

00:57:52.400 on that, so you have to understand them. And one of my assumptions was that the employees of the phone

00:57:58.100 company worked flawlessly, as did the developers of ISDN. And if they didn't make any mistakes in their

00:58:06.240 implementation or their decisions, and if ISDN, which was crap at the moment and had been crap for

00:58:12.320 a long time, were to become not crap because the people made all the right decisions from that point

00:58:17.960 on, ISDN would be an excellent thing to do, under the condition that my co-workers were capable and

00:58:25.660 competent. And Mr. Senior Vice President, you know your people better than I do. So if you trust them to be

00:58:32.320 capable and competent, this is a great thing to do.

00:58:38.460 It's probably the most fucked up thing I've ever done in my life.

00:58:44.880 But in my defense, they did have it coming. They had it coming. Now remember, they had already made

00:58:51.380 the decision, so it didn't really matter what I analyzed. But I gave them the cover they needed.

00:58:56.160 Because I didn't care. I just didn't care. So if I could give some corporate advice.

00:59:07.340 Don't put the guy you're trying to fire, and he knows it, on the biggest decision in your company,

00:59:13.880 because it was. It was the biggest decision in the company. And I gave them exactly what they asked for.

00:59:20.880 I gave them my assumption, and I said it clearly. If you believe your people can execute flawlessly,

00:59:27.960 unlike anything they've ever done before, this is a good idea. You should jump at it. And they did.

00:59:35.960 So all of you are using ISDN now, right? How's your ISDN connection? Working pretty well? I guess

00:59:42.340 that's everywhere. So there's your... Now, so that was real. That's a real-life story. Now,

00:59:50.440 every time you see a data analysis, what do you think? Right? You're going to ask yourself who did

00:59:56.820 it, and what assumptions did they make, and what are they trying to accomplish? Because people got

01:00:01.340 priorities, and it might not be yours. All right. Here's a data analysis test for you. I gave this

01:00:11.340 test to people online today. We'll see how you do. It's a data analysis test. I'm going to give you

01:00:17.220 an assumption. So don't argue with the assumptions, because these are not real assumptions. It's just,

01:00:25.940 if this were true. All right? So don't argue that it's not true. That's not the question. If it were

01:00:32.040 true, can you do the analysis? All right? So we're only testing your analytical ability. We're not

01:00:37.980 testing the facts. I stipulate the facts are true. They might not be. But let's act like they are,

01:00:43.920 and then do the analysis. Here it is. If you knew, now, new is critical, right? If you knew,

01:00:50.600 there's no doubt about it, because you're magic and you know. If you knew that 98% of the people

01:00:55.600 with COVID-19 who took ivermectin had a good outcome, would you conclude it worked? 98% of the

01:01:04.180 people taking it have a good outcome have a good outcome? Go. Do you conclude it works?

01:01:13.100 Well, your answers are all over the place. I see yeses and nos. How could that be?

01:01:18.600 How could this simple question have different answers? This is the most basic question.

01:01:24.860 98% of the people who took this drug had a good outcome. Are you telling me that doesn't convince

01:01:29.180 you? What would it take? If 98% is not enough, what would it take? How many of you said yes,

01:01:40.280 that's pretty good evidence that works, and are feeling a little uncertain right now?

01:01:45.500 How many of you are saying yes, but feeling maybe not as confident as you used to be in that opinion?

01:01:53.200 And I'm going to read it again, because you have to listen to all the words, right?

01:01:56.420 So remember, the part that's stipulated is true. You can't question this, because we're only looking

01:02:02.240 at the analysis, not the data. If you knew that 98% of the people with COVID who took ivermectin

01:02:09.440 had a good outcome, would you conclude it worked? Now you thought about it for a minute, and you've

01:02:17.120 seen other people's answers, right? Now show me just the yeses. You had a moment to think about it,

01:02:24.840 and you've seen other people's responses. Now just the yeses. Plenty of yeses. Lots of yeses.

01:02:33.140 Okay. Those of you who are saying yes are going to get a little dose of humility today,

01:02:38.940 and I don't mean this to be condescending. All right? So don't take this personally.

01:02:43.580 How many of you could design a nuclear-powered rocket without any help? Well, I couldn't. I

01:02:53.520 couldn't, because I don't have any training in that. How many of you could shoot a three-point

01:02:59.580 shot from the center of the court and make them as much as Stephen Curry? I can't. I can't. I don't

01:03:06.760 have any practice of that. Nothing. So I don't feel bad about it, right? I don't feel bad that I'm

01:03:12.580 not a physicist. I've never tried. Never been trained. So very few of you have been trained in

01:03:21.040 data analysis, I figure, right? Realistically. So if you've never been trained in data analysis,

01:03:26.620 and you have completely the wrong answer, don't feel bad about it. Okay? Why am I telling you that?

01:03:33.260 Because I want to, I'm going to try to turn off the trigger for cognitive dissonance.

01:03:38.040 The trigger would be feeling you're wrong. That would, in theory, that would trigger you into

01:03:43.580 hearing and thinking things that are incorrect. So I'm going to turn it off. If you're not

01:03:50.420 experienced expert in data analysis, there isn't any chance you'd be good at it. So if you got this

01:03:56.340 question wrong, don't feel bad about yourself. There's nothing wrong with you. You're a perfectly fine

01:04:02.760 human. You're going to get a little better in the moment, because I'm going to explain to you what

01:04:07.540 you got wrong. But very few people know how to analyze data. They think they do, and it's misleading.

01:04:14.000 You know, the reporters will give you data, and you think they know what they're talking about. They

01:04:17.840 don't. They don't. All right, here's the answer for those of you who are maybe experienced in data

01:04:25.220 analysis. If ivermectin gave a good outcome to 98% of the people, it would indicate it's probably bad

01:04:32.460 for you. All right? Again, remember, if this is different than what you thought, there's nothing

01:04:40.400 wrong with you. You're still good. You're just not experienced at data analysis. The setup I gave you

01:04:47.700 should indicate, under the following assumption, if it was given to a broad spectrum of the public that

01:04:54.380 represented the public, 98% is worse than nothing. If you gave people nothing, more than 98% of them

01:05:02.040 would have a good outcome if you didn't do anything. So if ivermectin gave them a 98% good outcome,

01:05:09.740 and doing nothing gave you slightly better than 98%, what does that tell you about ivermectin?

01:05:15.740 That would tell you it's bad for you, right? Now, remember, I'm making up the numbers. This is not

01:05:21.120 anything real, right? Nothing real. This is just an example. Now, the second thing you should have

01:05:29.200 asked is, who did you study? Because if the only people studied had been 80-year-old people who had

01:05:36.320 COVID and took no other drug, it would be a miracle drug, right? If the 80-year-olds had taken no other

01:05:44.540 drug, and only ivermectin had a 98% good outcome, that would be a miracle, a miracle drug. But suppose

01:05:51.940 the only people studied were children under 18, and 98% had a good outcome. Don't give them,

01:06:00.980 don't give them any ivermectin, if that's all you know, because they were going to do better than that

01:06:05.960 without the ivermectin. So you took a 99 point whatever percentage good outcome, and you took

01:06:12.680 it all the way down to 98 with your ivermectin. So if you don't know who you gave it to, you don't

01:06:17.540 know anything, right? Somebody says you killed several children, yeah. So let me say as clearly as

01:06:28.280 possible, I don't know if ivermectin works, okay? I don't discount it, but I don't think the data is

01:06:41.480 supporting it. Now, the only thing that I want you to learn has nothing to do with ivermectin,

01:06:46.480 all right? So this conversation is not about ivermectin, please, all right? I'm not talking

01:06:50.940 about ivermectin. It was just an example to see if people who don't have data analysis training

01:06:58.160 would automatically get exactly the wrong answer, and that's what happened. So all I wanted to

01:07:07.160 transmit is some humility that I would say, you know, even as an experienced, so I would label

01:07:14.260 myself a commercial-grade analyst, meaning I did it for money. Somebody who was willing to pay me

01:07:21.420 for my ability to analyze things, right? And even I get stuff wrong all the time.

01:07:26.900 All the time I get stuff wrong. So I've got a great deal of humility about my own ability,

01:07:34.040 and I'm pretty trained, right? I'm pretty well trained. If you're not trained, and you don't have

01:07:40.260 a really big dose of humility about how well you can analyze this stuff, you should get it, all right?

01:07:47.520 I'm seeing Christopher is sending me an article from Jim Hoft. It says, election expert Seth

01:07:57.600 Keschel releases national fraud numbers, finds 8.1 million excess votes in U.S. elections, affirms Trump

01:08:06.280 won, etc. What credibility do you put on that story, people? It's from the Gateway Pundit, Jim

01:08:12.520 Hoft, and he says that some expert has found 8.1 million excess votes, and it shows that Trump

01:08:19.320 really won. Credibility, everybody? Credibility? Good job. Good job. Yeah, zero or low, right?

01:08:36.160 Zero or low. Now, it doesn't mean it's untrue, right? Remember, when I say credibility, and I think

01:08:43.500 you're all trained on this by now, credibility doesn't have anything to do with true or false.

01:08:49.540 It's just whether the source and the way it comes to you is something you should automatically believe

01:08:54.180 or automatically be skeptical. Could be true. We're not ruling it out at all. But at the moment,

01:09:00.300 on first glance, it's about a zero credibility. If you see it in other places, and you see more

01:09:06.940 detail, maybe, maybe it'll go up. So again, doesn't mean it's not true, but I wouldn't get too excited

01:09:14.960 about it. Here's some good news from Twitter user JML. He talked about ivermectin, and he said,

01:09:25.060 and I quote from his tweet, I took it and got better in 46 hours. It works incredible.

01:09:32.200 Now, that is good news, because you probably are aware that there are some randomized controlled

01:09:37.800 trials going on for ivermectin, and we can cancel those now, because they're expensive,

01:09:44.240 they're going to take a long time. But now that we know that this one person is pretty sure that

01:09:50.540 it works incredible, and it wasn't just another one of the millions and millions and millions of cases

01:09:56.400 of people who did have one day that they felt better a little bit more than the other days.

01:10:03.320 So it's not that, but this one person, he's now tested it on himself, and that gives us

01:10:08.420 full scientific confidence. So thank you, JML, for making it unnecessary to do randomized controlled

01:10:16.260 drug trials. We can just give it to this guy. And I don't know how many other drugs he's willing to

01:10:21.740 test for us, but imagine how much money we can save. A randomized controlled drug style is like

01:10:27.080 crazy expensive. We're talking like tens of millions of dollars, maybe hundreds of millions.

01:10:32.060 But we can save all of that by just giving these drugs to JML. 46 hours later, you're going to know if

01:10:39.900 they work. He'll just tell you, and then you just take them to market. We could save

01:10:44.660 a lot of money. That's the best news I've heard all day. I hope he doesn't charge too much for his

01:10:52.480 services. So that would be great. All right. What else has happened? Was it wrong of Joe Rogan to take

01:11:01.120 ivermectin? I will give you the correct analytical decision. It's a risk management decision because you

01:11:10.540 don't know. If his doctor gave it to him, that means that somebody well informed that he trusts

01:11:18.300 thought the risk management balance was worth it because I guess the downside risk is kind of pretty close

01:11:25.660 to zero. Did it work? Nobody knows. Nobody knows. But was it a good risk management decision? It looks like it.

01:11:33.740 It looks like it. That doesn't mean you should do it. But if your doctor backs you up, that would help.

01:11:41.800 If your doctor says no, well, you know, take that under consideration. Doesn't mean you have to follow

01:11:47.080 the doctor's advice. But I would certainly give it some weight. I certainly would.

01:11:52.220 Scott just called Dr. Corey well informed. Yes. Yes. The rogue doctors who are claiming the opposite

01:12:05.440 of the consensus, they are well informed. That doesn't mean they're right. They just know a lot

01:12:12.320 of stuff you don't know. Definitely doesn't mean they're right. Have any weed users died of COVID?

01:12:23.720 I'd really like to know that. Because, you know, weed has been at least indicated in some

01:12:29.380 non-confirmed trials. Weed has indicated as a protective effect. Now, I can't speak for the rest of

01:12:38.280 you. But if COVID-19 can burrow through the solid layer of marijuana tar that I put on my lungs every

01:12:46.180 day, well, it deserves to kill me. I would say that's a fair fight. I'd say if you can get through

01:12:52.620 that barrier and you can take me out, good job on you, COVID. You have my respect. But you're going to

01:13:00.960 have to dig pretty hard to find lung. Now, I don't know if many of you know it, but

01:13:08.140 the only studies I've seen about lung cancer and health outcomes for continuous smokers such as

01:13:18.340 myself, the only health study I've seen is that they have the same life expectancy as everybody

01:13:24.660 else. Will the mask mandate stop before August 2022? Oh, yeah, I think so. What's happening in

01:13:33.260 Florida, by the way? Think about how confident you were about whatever you thought some other

01:13:41.280 country or state did. Did you ever have a period during the pandemic where you said, oh, Sweden,

01:13:47.820 the Sweden example, now we know what's going on. That tells me something. I'll look at Sweden,

01:13:52.620 then I'll look at what other people will do, and now I'll know what's going on.

01:13:55.240 Pretty clearly isolating the variables that matter and the ones that don't. Now that I know what's

01:14:00.540 happening in Sweden, we're good. Any of you had that feeling? Well, I didn't. How about when you

01:14:08.180 heard that India allegedly had one region that had like amazing success with ivermectin? So did you

01:14:16.360 believe that? You shouldn't. You shouldn't because there's no reliable information that India had

01:14:22.380 success with ivermectin. You think it is. You probably saw it in a tweet or you saw an article

01:14:26.880 completely debunked. How about the difference between Florida and California? Florida's infection

01:14:35.000 rate just dropped to sort of one of the best, meaning the lowest level since the beginning of

01:14:41.980 the pandemic. Why? Why'd that happen? Does anybody have any explanation for why Florida suddenly has

01:14:51.800 fewer infections? Somebody says seasonality, but that hasn't held. Seasonality has not acted the way

01:14:58.920 seasonality normally acts. The seasonality has been violated by this virus, right? Sunshine,

01:15:05.920 California, we've got sunshine. So every hypothesis you have doesn't seem to stand up, does it?

01:15:15.740 I don't know what it is. Apparently there's something pretty basic about this virus that we

01:15:20.740 still don't know. The experts still don't know. Because we can't predict any state, can we?

01:15:26.460 Do you think any expert could predict, okay, this state is now going to make a change in their

01:15:32.300 procedures? And then can the experts predict how it'll go? Apparently not. Apparently not. Now,

01:15:40.120 the one exception to that would be Christmas, I think. Christmas seems predictable, doesn't it?

01:15:46.120 But beyond that, I don't think you can compare a state to a state. We just don't know what's going on.

01:15:52.700 And I'll tell you what makes me super curious, is why is it that we get a bad

01:15:59.040 variant just about when we think we got the other one under control? Is it, is that a coincidence?

01:16:09.340 Because if one virus was created in a lab, wouldn't they make a variant too? Don't you think there was

01:16:19.020 more than one created in a lab? Are we sure the Delta variant is natural? And are we sure the one

01:16:25.480 after that, whatever they're talking about, the one that looks a little like it might be a problem?

01:16:30.160 Are we sure that's natural? How would you know? Oh, somebody's saying maybe the vaccines caused it.

01:16:35.620 I don't think there's any evidence for that, that the vaccines caused the variant. The evidence is

01:16:41.280 the greater amount of virus there is causes the variant, not the leaky vaccines. So everybody's

01:16:47.700 saying leaky vaccines. Do a little, do a fact check on that. I think the leaky vaccine hypothesis

01:16:54.500 that that actually causes variants, I think that's completely debunked by the fact that the thing

01:17:01.220 that causes mutations is more virus. So the more virus, the worse it is, just period. That's just

01:17:07.740 the only rule you need to know. More virus, more variants, that's all you need to know. Now the

01:17:12.260 exception would be if people got partially, let's say, immunized by the prior infection, at which point

01:17:21.100 the variant wouldn't be as powerful. If your infection, if your natural immunity also worked

01:17:27.180 against the variant, it could stop it that way. Natural mutations, more patients survive to pass

01:17:35.740 lung mutations. Okay. Here's another, what time is it? I've got time this morning. You want to hear

01:17:50.940 another conspiracy theory? Anybody? Anybody? Another conspiracy? Yeah, of course you do. Of course you

01:17:57.040 do. It goes like this. The supply chain problem, is it natural? Or was it maybe nudged by an adversary?

01:18:12.900 Question number one, could you tell the difference if it was natural, the supply chain problem,

01:18:19.500 or if there had been some hidden hand behind it? Would you know the difference? First answer,

01:18:26.620 I think no. You could. I mean, it's possible you'd see some hidden hand that wasn't so hidden.

01:18:34.160 But could an adversary do an attack like this that we would not be able to identify?

01:18:41.300 Yes. Yes. Let me give you an example of how this could be done by an adversary over a long period of

01:18:51.280 time, and you wouldn't know it. You ready? One of the biggest problems in, as I understand it,

01:18:58.460 and my example might be wrong, but it'll give you an idea, right? Even if the example details are wrong.

01:19:03.060 So in Long Beach, and I think in LA, they had a restriction about storing the empty containers.

01:19:10.820 At some point, that means that somebody brought forth legislation or some kind of rule change

01:19:17.860 to promote the rules about restricting what you can do with an empty.

01:19:23.220 Now, you probably think, oh, that was the unions, and probably was. Or that was just ordinary safety

01:19:30.240 procedures, and of course we did that. You know, there were some accidents, so it's just because

01:19:34.900 of the accidents. Could be. Here's the other possibility. How much would it cost

01:19:40.800 to bribe a local official to make some legislation that isn't really as good as you think it is for

01:19:50.360 the public? $30,000. All right. Now, you can fact check that, but my claim, just for conversation,

01:19:58.660 for conversation purposes alone, it would cost about $30,000 to bribe one politician. It doesn't

01:20:07.040 have to be even a direct bribe. It could be, you know, we'll fund you a campaign or something like

01:20:11.800 that. One politician, $30,000, to put some legislation in place about empty containers.

01:20:20.740 Now, do you have to bribe all the people who vote on the bill? Do you have to bribe them all?

01:20:28.760 Nope. Because they don't care about empty containers, do they? It's not an important topic. So if the

01:20:35.700 person who alleges he or she looked into the topic and said, look, I've looked into this deeply,

01:20:41.780 I wrote it all for you, made it easy. This problem of putting more than two containers on top is a big

01:20:48.880 problem. Vote for my bill. Do you think one person could get something passed if they were the only

01:20:56.660 person who understood the topic? Yes. Yes, they could. Now, suppose an adversary was doing this

01:21:06.000 kind of thing, finding weak spots in our major systems, and then influencing one politician

01:21:13.820 to become an expert in it, and put in place a restrictive policy that looks good when people see it at

01:21:24.220 first. Oh, you're going to improve the safety? Yeah, I'm on board. I'm good with safety. Oh,

01:21:31.900 you're going to protect the unions? Oh, well, we're a democratic state, and we like unions. We'd better

01:21:37.500 get them on our side. So, sure. Yeah, it could be done. Now, you say to yourself, but that's like

01:21:45.080 kind of a magic bullet, isn't it, Scott? You really think that the Chinese government is so smart

01:21:51.120 that they're looking for this weakness, and they find this one person that's exactly the right

01:21:56.440 person, and they do exactly the right thing? No. No. That's not the play. The play would be you do

01:22:05.480 that same thing, you know, the bribe the politician, but you do it all over the place. So, it's not just

01:22:11.580 about ports, and it's not just about the supply chain. It's about everything. It's about how we

01:22:17.600 procure for the military. It's about our policy for whether we should have domestic supplies of

01:22:24.780 this or that valuable stuff. It's about how quickly we could, let's say, put together a military

01:22:32.120 response, maybe crippling little places of it with restrictions and rules. So, they would put in place

01:22:38.600 a whole bunch of things that look like little steps, and then wait for the pandemic. Now, when I say

01:22:46.360 wait for the pandemic, I mean, wait for any big thing that is the extra pressure on the system.

01:22:53.720 So, they could just weaken a bunch of systems over 20 years at very low cost, and then wait for some

01:23:01.780 pressure on the systems that they didn't plan for, but there's always some pressure, and then that's

01:23:05.900 enough to knock it over. So, it could be that an adversary didn't even know they were going to

01:23:09.960 have success with a supply chain. It just, they had weakened a bunch of stuff, and this is the one that

01:23:15.460 got some extra pressure and pushed it over. Now, when you hear it described this way, does it sound

01:23:23.620 impractical? Anybody? Does anybody think that any of that sounds impractical?

01:23:31.920 No. Unfortunately, no. And I gave you only one very small example of something that could be very

01:23:40.680 easily and practically done. Don't you think there are more that don't involve bribing a politician?

01:23:47.440 Don't you think? Now, let me give you another one. What did I hear? There was some propaganda

01:23:53.640 that we all accepted. I just heard a story about some propaganda that the citizens of the United States

01:24:00.260 all accepted as true, and just was made up by some propaganda source. Do you think that an adversary

01:24:07.720 could convince us of something that isn't true, just in general? Could an adversary use, let's say,

01:24:15.500 maybe AI through just algorithms, not anything more AI than algorithms? Or, you know, let's say,

01:24:24.020 changing your social media impressions so you see more of something and less of something else.

01:24:30.700 Do you think they could change your mind about anything? Of course they could. Now, if they're trying to

01:24:36.600 change your mind about who to vote for, we can be sort of alert to that, and you're like, hey, you're a bot.

01:24:42.600 The way you're talking, I can tell you're a bot. Or, oh, that sounds like a Chinese spy.

01:24:46.960 But, would you be just as smart if the topic was storing nuclear waste, whether to regulate

01:25:00.620 electric cars, or something like that? Would you be just as smart and say, yeah, my opinion on batteries

01:25:09.260 versus storing nuclear waste is based on my own research, and my own knowledge of objective sources,

01:25:17.060 and at least they're American, even if they're trying to bias me. So I have an American objective opinion.

01:25:23.720 Maybe. But you don't think your foreign adversary could get 20% of you so afraid of any one of these things

01:25:31.900 that that 20% would form an action group to stop it from happening,

01:25:36.100 or would promote legislation that would at least have a chance of passing.

01:25:41.020 There are so many ways

01:25:42.780 that a clever and patient adversary

01:25:45.860 could influence, or I'll say nudge,

01:25:49.540 could nudge each of the

01:25:51.120 parts of the system, and just wait for something big to be the

01:25:55.440 last straw.

01:25:56.400 Right? Now, when you hear me describe it this way,

01:26:03.300 and then you think of the

01:26:04.780 you think of the supply chain

01:26:08.460 problems,

01:26:09.840 are you still confident

01:26:11.840 that it happened naturally?

01:26:15.360 How many of you

01:26:16.320 are confident

01:26:17.040 that it's a natural effect?

01:26:19.660 Because all the things we talk about look natural,

01:26:22.280 but they're all caused by something else,

01:26:24.540 which was caused by something else,

01:26:26.500 which was caused by something else.

01:26:28.440 So if you say to yourself,

01:26:29.720 Scott, Scott, Scott,

01:26:30.940 we know the problem.

01:26:31.900 The problem is just too many empty containers,

01:26:34.380 and there's a regulation.

01:26:35.540 That's it.

01:26:36.160 That's the whole problem.

01:26:38.040 Is it?

01:26:39.900 I don't know.

01:26:41.460 Who knows?

01:26:42.320 Maybe that's the problem that was caused

01:26:44.120 by a problem before it,

01:26:45.880 because it didn't happen on its own.

01:26:47.100 And whatever the problem before it was,

01:26:49.700 that was caused by the thing that happened before it.

01:26:52.380 You have no idea

01:26:54.240 what caused any of this.

01:26:56.600 There is a reason

01:26:57.720 that the news is not telling you

01:27:00.140 what's going on with the supply chain.

01:27:02.060 You've noticed that, right?

01:27:03.700 Have you noticed that the news

01:27:05.140 can't tell you exactly what's wrong?

01:27:08.380 Just that it is wrong.

01:27:09.820 Hey, there's lots of ships backed up.

01:27:12.620 You don't have your supplies.

01:27:14.760 That's all they can tell you.

01:27:16.300 It took a private citizen

01:27:18.060 to go down there

01:27:18.860 and look at the problem.

01:27:21.420 I'm very suspicious of a problem

01:27:25.260 that has too many explanations.

01:27:27.760 Because it's not like we lack explanations.

01:27:30.260 The problem is we have too many.

01:27:32.260 We've got the trucker shortage,

01:27:33.840 the truck shortage,

01:27:34.820 the regulations about what trucks you can use.

01:27:38.180 You've got the too much demand

01:27:40.500 because of the pandemic.

01:27:41.720 You've got people who don't want to get vaccinations

01:27:43.500 so they're not working.

01:27:45.040 You've got union problems.

01:27:47.480 I don't know.

01:27:48.260 Now, I understand the concept

01:27:51.480 that when the system fails,

01:27:53.100 you see failures all over it.

01:27:55.100 Okay, I get that.

01:27:56.600 But my pattern recognition

01:27:58.680 is picking up something else.

01:28:01.600 You know?

01:28:01.980 Do you know the book

01:28:04.100 by Malcolm Gladwell, Blink?

01:28:07.100 And he talks about the idea

01:28:08.900 that an expert can know something's true

01:28:11.620 before they know why.

01:28:12.660 The example he gives is

01:28:14.620 an art expert looking at a forgery.

01:28:18.540 The expert can look at the forgery

01:28:20.300 and say,

01:28:20.640 that's a fake.

01:28:22.260 But if you ask them why,

01:28:23.520 they'd have to think about it.

01:28:24.700 Well, I don't know.

01:28:26.360 I guess if I thought about it,

01:28:27.800 I don't know,

01:28:28.120 this part looks a little different

01:28:29.220 than the...

01:28:29.780 They wouldn't know.

01:28:32.600 That's the experience I'm having

01:28:34.060 with the supply chain problem.

01:28:35.440 It looks like a forgery.

01:28:39.640 I don't know why.

01:28:41.200 Like, I couldn't give you a detail.

01:28:43.780 But it doesn't look like

01:28:44.860 a genuine event to me.

01:28:46.340 It looks like a forgery.

01:28:48.260 Part of it is that we don't know

01:28:49.800 what the problem is,

01:28:50.700 and we should.

01:28:52.440 Part of it is we know

01:28:53.660 that China would have an incentive

01:28:55.340 to mess with us

01:28:56.200 in a variety of ways.

01:28:57.520 Part of it is I know it's practical.

01:28:59.400 It could be done.

01:29:01.760 And part of it is I know

01:29:02.940 that such things are done.

01:29:04.540 Like, it's a real thing

01:29:05.980 that is done in the real world.

01:29:08.100 It's not like I invented an idea

01:29:09.820 and nobody thought of it.

01:29:11.020 It's something that's happening.

01:29:13.420 You know, I'm sure we're doing it.

01:29:15.100 We, the United States.

01:29:16.120 You don't think we're putting

01:29:17.560 a little pressure on things?

01:29:20.740 So, I do not allege

01:29:23.520 that anybody is behind

01:29:25.840 the supply chain problem.

01:29:27.380 Let me be clear.

01:29:28.660 I make no allegation

01:29:29.840 that it's some kind of

01:29:31.460 a foreign attack.

01:29:32.840 The argument against it

01:29:34.220 is that it would affect

01:29:35.400 China as well.

01:29:37.300 And it's hard to imagine

01:29:38.680 that they know

01:29:39.440 it's going to be

01:29:39.940 a good outcome.

01:29:41.140 That would be

01:29:41.700 a pretty risky play.

01:29:43.560 But,

01:29:44.180 I can't turn off

01:29:45.940 the fact that,

01:29:46.780 like,

01:29:47.240 my spider sense

01:29:48.580 is just on full alert here.

01:29:50.460 Now, it could be

01:29:51.280 that the only thing going on

01:29:53.660 is that the real problem

01:29:54.760 is still not surfaced.

01:29:56.580 Like, we think it has,

01:29:58.140 but maybe there's

01:29:58.840 a deeper problem

01:29:59.640 below the problem,

01:30:00.440 below the problem.

01:30:01.040 So, it could be

01:30:02.240 that all I'm reacting to

01:30:04.920 is the fact

01:30:05.500 that there's

01:30:06.100 an obvious mystery here.

01:30:08.420 Right?

01:30:09.060 Would you agree

01:30:09.740 with me on that?

01:30:11.900 That there's

01:30:12.560 a mystery here?

01:30:14.420 It's not explained,

01:30:15.680 I don't think.

01:30:19.680 And I see people say

01:30:20.780 they think it affects

01:30:21.720 China the most.

01:30:22.580 In the long run,

01:30:23.160 I think it would.

01:30:24.040 But they might also

01:30:25.000 calculate that they

01:30:25.800 could survive it better.

01:30:26.880 I don't know.

01:30:27.220 Well, I'm seeing

01:30:32.520 somebody say

01:30:32.900 it's a comedy of errors

01:30:33.880 because only seven

01:30:34.960 cranes are working.

01:30:36.300 But the reason

01:30:36.880 the cranes can't work

01:30:37.980 is because there's

01:30:38.520 no room,

01:30:39.680 because there are

01:30:40.060 too many empties

01:30:40.740 in the port.

01:30:42.580 So, it's not

01:30:43.240 the crane problem.

01:30:44.300 I think we can

01:30:44.980 eliminate cranes

01:30:45.960 as a source

01:30:47.420 of the problem.

01:30:48.840 All right.

01:30:49.260 So, here's

01:30:49.740 another suggestion.

01:30:53.040 Let's say you put

01:30:53.980 the empties

01:30:54.480 on a train

01:30:55.240 with a crane.

01:30:56.300 Is there a train

01:30:58.520 that goes right to...

01:31:00.560 How close can you

01:31:01.400 get a train

01:31:03.160 that would carry

01:31:04.080 empties,

01:31:05.220 containers?

01:31:06.260 How close can you

01:31:07.200 get a train

01:31:07.640 to one of the ports?

01:31:09.260 Do they already

01:31:09.760 have close trains?

01:31:11.320 Because I'm wondering

01:31:12.140 if you couldn't

01:31:12.740 take one of those

01:31:13.860 cranes

01:31:14.400 and put it like

01:31:16.260 a mile away

01:31:17.080 from the port

01:31:17.700 in wherever there's

01:31:18.840 a big field

01:31:19.520 or something

01:31:19.980 and just have

01:31:20.980 the train

01:31:22.240 go one mile,

01:31:23.880 unload it,

01:31:24.640 go back one mile,

01:31:25.600 load it up,

01:31:26.060 go one mile

01:31:26.780 and unload it

01:31:27.520 into a field?

01:31:29.300 Probably there's

01:31:29.900 a distance problem.

01:31:30.820 I don't think

01:31:31.180 that would work.

01:31:32.860 Logging helicopters.

01:31:34.140 Oh, no, no.

01:31:35.680 Logging helicopters

01:31:36.640 because they could

01:31:37.300 lift a container.

01:31:38.200 Could they?

01:31:39.600 Would they be

01:31:40.180 big enough

01:31:40.620 to lift a full container?

01:31:43.080 Maybe.

01:31:44.160 But I think

01:31:44.840 that would be

01:31:45.400 super expensive,

01:31:47.620 but I don't even

01:31:48.500 know how fast

01:31:49.060 it would be.

01:31:51.740 Load the empties

01:31:52.540 back in the ship.

01:31:53.240 I don't understand

01:31:53.940 all the regulatory

01:31:54.740 problems with that,

01:31:57.260 but I don't think

01:31:58.140 that's as easy

01:31:58.740 as you think.

01:32:02.640 All right.

01:32:03.300 I think that's

01:32:03.800 all I have to say.

01:32:05.320 Question

01:32:05.760 was today's...

01:32:09.900 I got a comment

01:32:10.960 today on Twitter

01:32:11.900 that when I asked

01:32:13.560 my trick question

01:32:14.600 about the

01:32:15.360 ivermectin 98%

01:32:16.820 thing,

01:32:17.440 which I just

01:32:17.960 made up,

01:32:18.340 a Twitter user

01:32:21.640 said,

01:32:22.160 people don't like

01:32:23.260 to learn things

01:32:23.920 that way

01:32:24.360 because it was

01:32:25.380 like a trick question

01:32:26.220 and I trapped

01:32:26.760 you into it.

01:32:27.900 How many of you

01:32:28.860 had a negative

01:32:29.920 reaction to that?

01:32:31.460 Did anybody

01:32:31.860 have a negative

01:32:32.480 reaction to the

01:32:34.080 way I set that

01:32:35.000 tweet up with

01:32:35.700 the 98%?

01:32:37.540 Or did you...

01:32:39.120 Because what I

01:32:39.580 was shooting for,

01:32:40.420 I don't know

01:32:40.760 if I hit it,

01:32:41.780 but what I was

01:32:42.360 shooting for

01:32:43.000 is do you feel,

01:32:45.340 for at least

01:32:45.800 some of you,

01:32:46.700 to feel your

01:32:47.480 certainty evaporate.

01:32:49.540 That's all I

01:32:50.200 wanted.

01:32:50.780 I just want

01:32:51.180 your certainty

01:32:51.700 to evaporate.

01:32:55.460 Okay.

01:32:56.260 So most of you

01:32:57.240 were not bothered

01:32:57.760 by it.

01:32:58.040 Good.

01:32:58.260 I just wanted

01:32:58.640 to check in

01:32:59.080 on that.

01:32:59.980 Because if the

01:33:01.040 only thing it

01:33:01.480 did was irritate

01:33:02.180 you, it wasn't

01:33:03.340 persuasive.

01:33:04.460 All right.

01:33:04.920 Good.

01:33:05.860 Good to know.

01:33:06.840 Let me ask you

01:33:07.320 this.

01:33:07.980 How many learned

01:33:08.580 something useful?

01:33:10.360 Useful maybe

01:33:11.160 just in understanding

01:33:12.060 the world,

01:33:12.600 not necessarily.

01:33:13.540 How many learned

01:33:14.260 something useful

01:33:15.200 today?

01:33:17.480 Lots of yeses

01:33:19.040 over on Locals

01:33:20.920 about YouTube.

01:33:23.760 I pissed one

01:33:25.020 of you off.

01:33:28.200 Seeing lots

01:33:29.060 of yeses.

01:33:30.260 Allah learned

01:33:31.000 nothing.

01:33:32.080 Those of you

01:33:32.980 who learned

01:33:33.380 nothing,

01:33:34.380 you're very

01:33:34.840 smart people.

01:33:36.220 I could probably

01:33:36.940 learn something

01:33:37.420 from you.

01:33:38.920 Only the last

01:33:39.780 30 minutes was

01:33:40.520 good.

01:33:41.580 Okay.

01:33:41.980 Good feedback.

01:33:42.640 A bit.

01:33:47.860 All right.

01:33:48.280 Good.

01:33:49.240 So here's,

01:33:50.000 I finally decided

01:33:51.940 what my role is,

01:33:55.240 if you'd like to

01:33:55.980 hear it.

01:33:56.960 I think my role

01:33:58.260 is to teach you

01:33:59.480 to be more

01:34:00.880 effective.

01:34:02.560 Persuasion

01:34:03.020 would be just

01:34:03.740 one way.

01:34:04.900 But I think

01:34:05.980 what I've sort

01:34:07.160 of accidentally

01:34:07.840 stumbled on is

01:34:09.280 a way to use

01:34:09.900 the headlines

01:34:10.560 for your

01:34:12.240 personal

01:34:12.860 improvement.

01:34:15.780 I don't know

01:34:16.420 anybody's done

01:34:16.940 that before.

01:34:17.840 And I didn't

01:34:18.320 do it intentionally.

01:34:19.200 I just sort of

01:34:19.720 drifted here

01:34:20.460 and thought,

01:34:21.420 hey,

01:34:22.400 I just realized

01:34:23.220 that I'm using

01:34:23.720 the headlines

01:34:24.320 as a,

01:34:25.620 as a,

01:34:26.220 like a honeypot.

01:34:27.960 Like I'm

01:34:28.680 trapping you in

01:34:29.380 here with the

01:34:29.760 headlines because

01:34:30.320 that's what you

01:34:30.800 were interested in.

01:34:31.620 It's like,

01:34:31.880 oh,

01:34:32.060 let's hear about

01:34:32.600 Alec.

01:34:33.400 What's he,

01:34:33.960 what's he going

01:34:34.300 to say about

01:34:34.720 Alec Baldwin?

01:34:35.280 And then once

01:34:36.340 you're trapped

01:34:36.760 in here on

01:34:37.240 the headlines,

01:34:37.800 which is

01:34:38.100 automatically

01:34:38.580 interesting,

01:34:39.640 I try to

01:34:40.140 talk about

01:34:40.840 them specifically

01:34:41.780 in a way that

01:34:42.460 gives you some

01:34:43.560 kind of life

01:34:44.040 skill when

01:34:45.360 you're done.

01:34:47.140 And I only

01:34:48.940 realized this

01:34:49.500 yesterday.

01:34:50.120 Isn't that

01:34:50.400 weird?

01:34:51.140 I mean,

01:34:51.780 this is the

01:34:54.560 thing about

01:34:55.360 framing.

01:34:56.560 Until you

01:34:57.200 frame something

01:34:57.980 right, you

01:34:58.820 don't really

01:34:59.200 understand it.

01:35:00.320 And I had

01:35:00.900 been framing

01:35:01.400 this as sort

01:35:02.080 of a mishmash

01:35:03.800 that I was

01:35:06.400 just doing

01:35:06.760 the things

01:35:07.120 I liked.

01:35:07.800 I liked

01:35:08.180 talking about

01:35:08.860 the news,

01:35:09.440 and I liked

01:35:09.720 talking about

01:35:10.200 self-improvement,

01:35:11.340 and sometimes

01:35:12.560 I'm selling a

01:35:13.280 book about

01:35:13.720 those things.

01:35:14.600 So I just

01:35:15.260 sort of drifted

01:35:16.020 here.

01:35:16.720 I didn't realize

01:35:17.320 that I'd

01:35:17.760 accidentally hit

01:35:18.500 a model,

01:35:19.360 a business

01:35:19.740 model.

01:35:20.540 And the

01:35:21.060 business model,

01:35:21.760 completely

01:35:22.060 accidentally,

01:35:23.380 is draw you

01:35:24.280 in with the

01:35:24.620 headlines and

01:35:25.160 teach you

01:35:25.480 something so

01:35:26.180 you feel like

01:35:26.700 you got

01:35:26.980 something in

01:35:27.440 it.

01:35:28.320 Now, I

01:35:30.000 wonder if I

01:35:30.520 could have

01:35:30.800 thought of

01:35:31.720 that and

01:35:32.100 then executed

01:35:32.760 it, or I

01:35:33.320 had to drift

01:35:33.900 into it.

01:35:35.080 It feels like

01:35:35.660 it would have

01:35:36.200 been maybe

01:35:37.340 a different

01:35:37.680 result if I

01:35:38.360 had gone at

01:35:38.960 it a different

01:35:39.360 way.

01:35:41.100 And this

01:35:41.680 gets to,

01:35:43.200 what is this

01:35:43.960 a good example

01:35:44.560 of that I

01:35:45.960 always talk

01:35:46.420 about?

01:35:47.760 Systems over

01:35:48.560 goals.

01:35:49.640 Did I have a

01:35:50.400 goal of

01:35:51.380 creating this

01:35:52.260 business model?

01:35:53.760 Nope.

01:35:54.800 I never even

01:35:55.580 really thought of

01:35:56.400 it this way

01:35:56.900 until literally

01:35:57.660 yesterday.

01:35:58.740 Literally

01:35:59.180 yesterday, it's

01:35:59.780 the first time

01:36:00.220 I realized

01:36:00.640 what we had

01:36:02.060 collectively

01:36:03.040 created.

01:36:04.720 Because I

01:36:05.360 don't even

01:36:06.040 take credit

01:36:06.660 for even

01:36:08.180 drifting into

01:36:08.840 it, because

01:36:09.160 most of you

01:36:09.940 sort of

01:36:10.940 nudged me

01:36:11.820 into it,

01:36:12.200 right?

01:36:13.580 Here's a

01:36:14.160 question.

01:36:15.460 Are you my

01:36:16.220 creation,

01:36:17.740 meaning that

01:36:18.320 I've influenced

01:36:18.860 you some way,

01:36:19.940 large or

01:36:20.740 small, or

01:36:21.640 am I your

01:36:22.260 creation?

01:36:25.040 Am I your

01:36:26.080 creation, or

01:36:26.840 are you my

01:36:27.340 creation?

01:36:27.700 this gets

01:36:31.540 back to the

01:36:32.080 question of

01:36:32.600 power, and

01:36:33.460 understanding who

01:36:34.180 has the

01:36:34.560 power.

01:36:35.620 If you don't

01:36:36.420 think you've

01:36:37.040 influenced me

01:36:37.860 more than I've

01:36:38.900 influenced you,

01:36:40.020 most of you,

01:36:40.720 some of you,

01:36:41.380 maybe a lot,

01:36:43.180 yeah, it's a

01:36:44.040 two-way street,

01:36:45.380 but your

01:36:46.400 control over me

01:36:47.500 is extreme.

01:36:49.720 Extreme.

01:36:50.660 How many

01:36:51.100 times have you

01:36:51.720 seen one

01:36:53.520 comment completely

01:36:54.720 change my game?

01:36:55.640 Those of you

01:36:57.580 who have been

01:36:57.740 watching for a

01:36:58.240 while, how

01:36:58.780 many times

01:36:59.200 have you seen

01:36:59.560 it?

01:36:59.700 Just one

01:37:00.080 comment just

01:37:01.340 totally changed

01:37:02.240 my game.

01:37:03.320 All the time.

01:37:04.880 All the time.

01:37:05.920 Right?

01:37:06.140 All the time.

01:37:07.480 So, when you're

01:37:09.420 analyzing how

01:37:10.080 much personal

01:37:10.740 power you have,

01:37:12.860 consider that you

01:37:13.600 have all of

01:37:14.160 mine, you

01:37:15.440 have all of

01:37:15.880 my power.

01:37:17.560 People, every

01:37:18.220 day, somebody

01:37:18.980 sends me a

01:37:19.600 tweet that they

01:37:20.300 hope I'll

01:37:20.700 retweet, and

01:37:22.080 every day I

01:37:22.740 retweet some

01:37:23.360 of them.

01:37:24.740 So, all of

01:37:25.380 those people

01:37:25.900 got to use

01:37:26.960 all of my

01:37:27.440 power.

01:37:28.540 But it

01:37:29.020 wasn't mine

01:37:29.460 anyway.

01:37:29.780 It was

01:37:29.960 borrowed.

01:37:30.900 All of my

01:37:31.560 power is

01:37:31.980 borrowed.

01:37:32.960 Like, I

01:37:33.320 don't even

01:37:33.620 see it as

01:37:33.980 real.

01:37:34.980 Like, I

01:37:35.240 don't internalize

01:37:37.300 it as me

01:37:37.780 having power.

01:37:39.160 I internalize

01:37:40.000 it as being

01:37:40.500 part of a

01:37:40.980 system.

01:37:42.260 And when the

01:37:42.840 system is

01:37:43.300 working, I'm

01:37:43.840 doing my

01:37:44.220 part, but I'm

01:37:45.700 not the power

01:37:46.200 source.

01:37:47.300 I'm more like a

01:37:48.020 conduit and a

01:37:49.120 filter, maybe.

01:37:49.880 I'm a filter and

01:37:50.660 a conduit.

01:37:52.660 And I, you

01:37:53.160 know, I add a

01:37:53.780 little power, but

01:37:55.080 so do all of

01:37:55.740 you.

01:37:57.800 All right.

01:37:58.540 So, I try to

01:37:59.160 model the stuff

01:37:59.860 that's most

01:38:00.520 useful as

01:38:01.040 well.

01:38:02.740 Bring back

01:38:03.400 your Democratic

01:38:03.960 friend.

01:38:05.040 I had to cut

01:38:05.740 him off

01:38:06.080 entirely.

01:38:08.780 Watch it.

01:38:09.620 You babbling.

01:38:11.060 Yeah, I think

01:38:11.660 we're at the

01:38:12.040 babbling part of

01:38:12.740 the presentation.

01:38:14.160 So, I will

01:38:15.580 let you go, and

01:38:16.920 let's do

01:38:17.200 something else

01:38:17.580 today.

01:38:17.840 Okay?

01:38:19.180 Bye for now.

01:38:19.780 Oh, Walter

01:38:22.400 says, if I log

01:38:24.000 into Locals, how

01:38:25.000 do I find the

01:38:25.620 link to all the

01:38:27.260 microlessons?

01:38:28.400 Unfortunately, I

01:38:29.280 don't have a link

01:38:30.040 to it, but you

01:38:31.920 can find the

01:38:33.860 content list, and

01:38:35.240 then you can also

01:38:35.860 do a search on the

01:38:37.180 phrase microlist.

01:38:38.580 So, just use the

01:38:39.560 search bar and

01:38:40.740 search for my

01:38:41.400 content under

01:38:42.540 microlesson, just

01:38:44.900 that phrase, and

01:38:45.560 they all pop right

01:38:46.160 up.

01:38:47.020 Microlesson.

01:38:47.460 There is also

01:38:49.000 an index, which

01:38:51.540 I probably should

01:38:54.920 retweet.

01:38:58.100 But there is an

01:38:58.900 index for them, but

01:38:59.840 it would be better

01:39:00.720 if you just search

01:39:01.320 for them.

01:39:01.720 All right, thanks

01:39:02.160 for that, and I'll

01:39:02.720 talk to you later.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - October 24, 2021

Episode 1540 Scott Adams： Persuasion Lessons Taken From Today's Headlines. Find Out What You've Been Doing Wrong

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript