Episode 1588 Scott Adams： Today I Will Teach you a Persuasion Trick So Powerful This Video Will Probably Be Banned
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
147.48564
Summary
Join me for the unparalleled pleasure of the day: The dopamine hit that makes everything better. It starts on a high point and it s just going to keep going all the way through to the end! Enjoy!
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Good morning everybody and welcome to the best thing that's ever happened to you and it's getting
00:00:10.040
better as you sit here. Yeah, I know. It's already peaking and getting better. Wow. That's how good
00:00:17.940
it's going to be. Do you want to take it up a level? Today is maybe the best thing you've ever
00:00:22.820
seen in your life could change your entire worlds. That's not even an exaggeration. It might for some
00:00:30.580
of you. But before we get to that, the simultaneous sip. That's right. It starts on a high point and
00:00:37.960
it's just going to keep going all the way. Watch this. But first, all you need is a cup or mug or a
00:00:42.680
glass, a tank or gel, a stein, a canty jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite
00:00:49.840
liquid I like. Coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine hit of the
00:00:56.680
day. It's the thing that makes everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. It happens now. Go.
00:01:10.720
Raging antibodies. Raging. They're raging against the machine and against the COVID and everything
00:01:17.460
else. Well, is there anybody here who would like to see me change my opinion about vaccinations?
00:01:25.380
Would that be popular? Anybody? Well, we'll get to that. But first, CNN's banner today,
00:01:37.940
they've got a big red banner to tell you the important things about the news. Here are the
00:01:43.140
important things. And this is an exact quote from CNN's banner of the important things you need to
00:01:49.980
know. COVID-19 hospitalizations are climbing nationwide. Number two, Trump may take his
00:01:57.660
January 6th committee fight to the Supreme Court. And number three, there's a cream cheese shortage.
00:02:03.000
What? I'm sitting on a fresh batch of bagels, and I'm only about half cheesed.
00:02:18.560
I could circle back to this COVID thing and the January 6th thing, but really? If I have to go a week
00:02:28.220
without cream cheese, well, I'm moving to another country. That's all there is to it.
00:02:34.280
Has anybody tried to watch the Discovery Star Trek series? It's in the third year or fourth year? I can't
00:02:43.060
remember. I don't. Do not watch it. It started out pretty well, and I actually recommended it. I think
00:02:54.040
the second season, it got pretty good. But oh my God, they've just destroyed it.
00:03:00.720
Now, of course, art is subjective, right? So I'm certainly open to the possibility that somebody
00:03:08.460
is watching this and just loving it. But here's what happened. They've decided to flip the switch
00:03:15.040
switch to flip the switch on the traditional, you know, original Star Trek, which was mostly a bunch
00:03:24.880
of white people. But we threw in, you know, Sulu and who was the woman who played the communications
00:03:33.640
officer? Uhura. So even the first Star Trek, the original, was more woke than television in general,
00:03:43.240
because it was actually sort of a big deal to have a main character who was a black woman back in
00:03:48.120
those primitive days. But mostly it was a bunch of white people running around doing sci-fi. But
00:03:55.080
what Discovery's done is completely flipped it. And essentially every character has something going
00:04:03.540
on. And when I say going on, they're either a minority or they're LGBTQ or they're a woman or
00:04:13.240
something. So I don't know that they have too many straight males in it at all, a few, but they don't
00:04:19.560
have big, big roles. Now, let me be clear. I like, I like, you know, entertainment should reflect the
00:04:29.300
real world and, and the customers who are consuming it. So there's nothing wrong with the impulse.
00:04:35.660
Just to be clear, I'm completely in favor of the, you know, the impulse behind it, which is,
00:04:43.340
you know, bring everybody in. Make sure you have entertainment that appeals to as many people as
00:04:47.960
possible. That's a good thing. However, as, as a writer and someone who has written for television
00:04:55.160
especially, I can tell you this, as soon as you put that kind of a constraint on your writing,
00:05:01.800
it takes a lot of flexibility away. So if you make your show about that, and then it has to be about
00:05:08.800
that, it's hard for it to be about anything else. So the problem is it just constrains the universe
00:05:14.320
of things they can do and people they can hire and that kind of stuff. So it looks like a disaster,
00:05:21.740
even though it's well-intentioned. It's actually well-made though. The, the, uh, primary actress,
00:05:28.860
a black woman whose name I wish I remembered, but I don't, uh, is really, really good. Like, just as a
00:05:35.660
professional actress, just a great on-screen presence. But I think it's the other stuff. It's the writing
00:05:43.020
that I think bogged it down. The, the performers are actually quite good. And the production is really
00:05:48.960
good. But I think the writing just fell apart. Anyway, the, uh, I saw a picture of Trump at the
00:05:55.460
golf course. It looked like a recent picture, something in the last few weeks. And, uh, he looks
00:06:02.500
like he's definitely changed his diet. Has anybody seen a, a recent picture of him not wearing a jacket?
00:06:09.240
So you can, you know, see him saying his golf clothes. He looks like he's lost, I don't know,
00:06:16.080
I'd hate to guess, but 60 pounds. It looks, it looks pretty substantial. Now that it could be that
00:06:23.560
he's trying to get down to a fighting weight to, uh, compete, or it could be telling us he's not going
00:06:29.780
to run. Because one of the things that happens when you lose weight at that age, and I'm, you know,
00:06:35.380
exhibit A, is it makes you look older. Um, if, if your face is the thing that's usually what people
00:06:42.000
see, as you're seeing mine right now, if I gained, uh, uh, about seven pounds, these lines just go
00:06:51.940
away. They disappear. It's almost like a facelift. See these lines? Seven pounds, and it goes like that,
00:06:59.060
just disappears. So if I wanted to be a little bit heavier than I would like to be,
00:07:04.420
so I wouldn't look, you know, as good with my shirt off, I could look way better in the face.
00:07:10.100
And if I were a politician, that would be a tough trade-off. Because it will make him look older,
00:07:14.580
and that's going to be, that's going to be a major factor for anybody's vote decision,
00:07:19.960
or should be. Maybe it hasn't been, but it should be. All right. Um, and I love the fact that he's
00:07:26.260
sending a, uh, the right message, especially during COVID, right? Because we know weight is a big
00:07:31.980
factor. Health is a big factor. So I think I give, uh, Trump kudos for his role modeling,
00:07:38.440
uh, decision, even if it was just for his personal reasons, probably was, but it's a good role model.
00:07:45.660
And yes, and I, and let me extend that to Joe Biden, who has had a lifetime of commitment to
00:07:51.880
fitness. Can we say that? I know you're not all Biden fans, but can we give him that? I would say,
00:07:58.400
um, Joe Biden has been one of the best examples of lifelong commitment to fitness.
00:08:06.460
So we can give him that. Uh, whereas Obama was, at least he liked to exercise and he was, he was thin,
00:08:13.200
but he smoked. So, I mean, that's just the worst possible thing you could do as a president.
00:08:19.860
Uh, would you like to talk about some, uh, some mysteries of cognitive behavior? Yes, you would.
00:08:26.900
Right. So here's a mystery that I've been trying to figure out, and I think I figured it down.
00:08:32.400
And I want to run this by you, and we're going to go to the whiteboard for this.
00:08:36.080
I'll give you your advanced hypnosis lesson in a bit. But I've been trying to figure out why there
00:08:43.160
are people who are really paying attention to all things coronavirus. We're seeing completely different
00:08:49.480
studies and facts than I was. And at first I thought, oh, I get it. This is because people are
00:08:55.740
looking at different things. But now I don't think so. I have a, I have a new hypothesis, which I feel
00:09:03.600
pretty strongly about, about why people are seeing completely different facts about coronavirus.
00:09:11.540
And before you take this as an insult, let me clarify. When I say analytical skills, or analytic
00:09:22.600
skills, I'm not talking about something you're born with. I'm not talking about your IQ. And
00:09:29.480
the only claim I'm going to make is that it's a learnable, teachable skill. If you have gone
00:09:36.140
through years of experience on decision making and analytics, you're probably good at it. If you've
00:09:44.400
never had that kind of background, but you're also very smart, you're very worldly, you spent a lot of time
00:09:49.920
in the world, you could imagine that you have those skills and not even be close. So there is, I would say
00:09:58.280
maybe 90% of the population believes they have something closer to high analytical skills while
00:10:05.540
in fact they have low analytical skills and has nothing to do with their genes, right? You're not
00:10:11.540
born that way. You're simply not born that way. It's just a learned skill that not everybody knows
00:10:17.080
is learned. And so when I look at certain facts such as vaccines reduce the spread and reduce deaths,
00:10:25.700
there are other people who say, wait a minute, no, I'm looking at different data than you are.
00:10:30.780
All the data I look at says the opposite. It says none of that's happening. But why is it that I was
00:10:37.220
only seeing my data? Was it confirmation bias? Because that's what I thought it was. Or maybe just
00:10:42.980
different channels of news or something. But now I've decided that it's probably more of this,
00:10:49.080
because I think everybody's seeing the same stuff. At least I'm seeing the same stuff on both sides now.
00:10:53.980
And when I see the stuff that tells me the vaccines don't help you. Now, we're not talking
00:11:00.900
about side effects now. Not talking about side effects. That's a separate conversation. And I
00:11:06.580
have a different, definitely a different view on vaccination. So if you want to wait around
00:11:11.680
to see that my opinion on vaccinations has changed, some of you are going to enjoy that. But just hold
00:11:18.460
that thought. All I'm trying to do here is give you a different framework for why we're seeing
00:11:23.060
different realities. My belief is that we're blind to the other. Meaning that I did actually
00:11:31.340
see all the things that the people were saying were proof that vaccines don't work. I saw all
00:11:38.580
of them. But if you're good at analytical stuff, you probably discounted them to the point of being
00:11:45.220
blind to them. Like literally forgetting them as soon as you saw them. For example, if somebody
00:11:50.860
sends me an anecdote of some specific thing that happened, if you are a high analytic person,
00:11:57.480
you say, well, that means nothing. If you're low analytical, you haven't been trained, you'd
00:12:03.600
say, well, okay, I get that one story doesn't mean anything. Well, I'm seeing a lot. I'm seeing
00:12:10.940
dozens. I'm seeing hundreds of stories. In fact, the VAERS database has tens of thousands.
00:12:20.100
So we're not talking about an anecdote anymore, are we? Say the people who are not especially good
00:12:26.720
at analytics. But the people who are especially good at analytics would say this. Wait a minute.
00:12:34.380
The way the reporting is that the VAERS database is more danger than we've ever seen, right? I think
00:12:42.360
you'd all agree with that. Bigger numbers than we've seen for other vaccinations. On top of that,
00:12:49.500
the people in journalism are telling us, and a lot of medical professionals too, a lot of experts are
00:12:54.680
saying it is likely grossly underreported. Underreported. So as big as those side effects are that are being
00:13:03.460
reported now, it could be five times that size, say the experts, who are generally not trained in
00:13:12.420
analytics. They're experts in their field, medicine, virology. But are they experts at analyzing stuff?
00:13:22.380
Maybe not. If you were an expert at analyzing something, you would say something more like this.
00:13:27.340
So what if the VAERS database is 10 times as big as what you'd expect? Because you haven't told me
00:13:37.260
how much benefit there is. Because if you don't tell me how much benefit there is, I don't know if
00:13:43.780
that 10 times danger thing is actually meaningful. What if it went from one person in the world to 10
00:13:49.920
people in the whole world? It would still be nothing, you know, relative to the whole population, but it would
00:13:56.560
be 10 times more. So don't tell me that there is a raw number more if you're leaving out the percentages
00:14:03.360
and the appropriate comparison. Is the appropriate comparison to other vaccinations? Nope. That's not the
00:14:14.060
appropriate comparison. That's what you compare to if you're not good at analyzing. If you're good at
00:14:19.440
analyzing, you say, wait a minute, this is a pandemic. You don't make your risk management
00:14:23.900
decisions the same as business as normal. A whole different standard. So people are seeing completely
00:14:31.860
different things as facts because if you have no training in analytics, you think you're seeing
00:14:38.480
things that mean something. If you're highly trained in analytics, you know that you're not.
00:14:44.060
Does that mean that the people who are high in analytics are right? In the comments,
00:14:52.060
I'm going to make you say it out loud so I don't have to say it. In the comments, did I just tell
00:14:58.140
you that the people who are good at analytics are getting all the right answers? Did I just say that?
00:15:05.880
Did you hear that? Nope. Nothing like that. Nothing like that. See, this is another way that
00:15:13.880
I confuse people. Because I make an argument, which I think is useful, and then it's easy to jump to the
00:15:22.140
conclusion that I've taken it somewhere I didn't. This is all I'm saying. If I want to tell you who's
00:15:28.680
right, that would be a different conversation. But it has nothing to do with the fact that some
00:15:33.880
people are trained and some are not. Let me give you the perfect example. I consider myself highly
00:15:40.080
trained in analytics. I've got a degree in economics. I've got an MBA. Many years of decision making with
00:15:48.360
lack of data and complex situations over long periods of time, which I do in my Dilbert job as well as
00:15:55.280
years of corporate experience. Now, does all of that analytical ability make me right?
00:16:05.480
Sometimes. But even I don't know when I'm wrong, right? So don't go overboard that somebody's got
00:16:12.240
the right training who's always right. Because here's the problem. I was going into this whole
00:16:19.620
pandemic situation saying, all right, let's look at all the information and discount the bad stuff and
00:16:25.700
prioritize the good stuff. And I was really looking at it like this big complicated thing that needed to
00:16:31.380
be understood as a whole. Other people who may not have had the experience of analytics said this.
00:16:39.700
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. It's from the government? Well, that's not good. Wait a minute. It's from
00:16:47.980
big pharma? They're going to say anything for money. Okay, who's right? The really, really smart people
00:16:56.980
who are good at analytics, looking at all the data, looking at all the randomized controlled trials,
00:17:04.340
looking at all the experience, everything that says, CNN says, everything on Fox News, looking at
00:17:10.680
both sides, you're digging down, you're doing your own research. Damn it. You're doing your own
00:17:16.420
research and you're good at it. You're good at it. So you get the right answer, right? I don't know.
00:17:25.800
Peace me. I guess we'll all find out. You're gone. You're gone. Sorry, wander this world.
00:17:34.340
There's something that I can't stand, and it's you. Hide this user. Goodbye. All right.
00:17:45.840
Now, I'm not saying anything that I haven't said before in different ways. But I am saying
00:17:51.600
it more forcefully because I could tell that the message wasn't getting through and I was
00:17:55.680
confusing people, etc. How pissed off am I going to be if it turns out that the people who didn't
00:18:05.760
do any analysis at all and just said, it's from the government? It's from Pfizer? They'll sell you
00:18:12.900
anything for money. What if it turns out they're just totally right? Because I'm not going to rule
00:18:21.340
that out. Now, I don't think it's right. And I'll tell you some, you know, I'll give you my
00:18:27.820
reasons. But I will tell you that my thinking has evolved as information has changed. Now,
00:18:36.360
if you ask me which way has the information changed, I would say it is closer to the people
00:18:43.200
who didn't do any analysis at all and just said, it's from the government? It's from big pharma?
00:18:53.840
Now, by the way, this is sort of a related aside. I've told you before that while my personal feelings
00:19:03.400
are left of Bernie in terms of goals, you know, he has impractical ways to get there. And I think
00:19:08.640
Republicans are more practical. So I like that part about him. But the other thing I like about
00:19:13.440
sort of the conservative mindset is it really does get to the point faster. It's like, came from the
00:19:22.060
government? Nope. Want to raise my taxes? No, thank you. Want to limit my freedom? We're done here.
00:19:28.680
And the thing that's agonizingly annoying about that is how often it's right. Right? It just annoys the
00:19:40.080
piss out of me when that point of view just continually, you know, hits a high percentage
00:19:46.660
of rightness. Not all the time. I mean, I think it can create a blind spot. It can definitely create
00:19:52.880
a blind spot. You know, and so maybe 80% you get the right answer. But that 20% is pretty dangerous.
00:19:59.580
So, you know, don't get too cocky. Don't get cocky. Don't get cocky if you're right 80% of the
00:20:05.700
time. That's not good enough. All right. So this is my opinion about why people are seeing different
00:20:11.480
things. Again, does not mean that I'm right and you're wrong. All right. We're going to get back to
00:20:21.380
some related stuff that's a lot of fun here in a minute. How would you like a persuasion lesson
00:20:29.660
so powerful that I think it will get this video banned? Are you ready for that? Now, here's some
00:20:40.260
context. The people on Locals are getting a larger set of instructions that they will assemble on their
00:20:50.020
own to pair with what I'm going to teach you now. Short of that context, you won't be able to use this
00:20:58.040
for much, but you're going to find it very interesting and it is useful. It just won't be
00:21:02.840
useful for maybe something specific. But this is big. And when you ask me, let me tell you in advance,
00:21:12.220
when you tell me where's the book where I can learn more doesn't exist. Where's the video where I can
00:21:17.860
learn more doesn't exist? You can only learn this from another hypnotist who tells you in person
00:21:22.960
there's something so powerful that they shouldn't be told to the public, but I'm going to take a
00:21:28.740
chance to see what happens. I guess I felt, I think I woke up wanting to cause trouble today.
00:21:36.460
All right. Now, like I said, this is part of a larger body of persuasion. So if you hadn't done some
00:21:49.460
priming things, such as making yourself credible, creating the assumption that you can do what you say,
00:21:57.360
things like that. If you haven't primed things, you haven't selected the right person, there's a whole bunch
00:22:03.520
of other stuff you have to do. But this is a key concept. You won't see this anywhere else.
00:22:11.780
Suppose you wanted to get control of somebody's body so that you could suggest something and they
00:22:17.660
would actually feel it. This is how you do it. And again, you'll never see this written down.
00:22:26.500
You start with a suggestion. And I won't be hypnotizing you, but some of you are going to feel
00:22:32.420
this, okay? So there's no intention to hypnotize anybody while you're here. But because there are so
00:22:39.280
many of you, and we're all different, some of you might actually feel this. If you're uncomfortable
00:22:45.260
with that, you should skip this part. Okay? So that's your full warning, is that you might actually
00:22:51.640
feel something in your body. It's not intentional. But somebody out there would feel it. If you don't like
00:22:57.580
that, you should check out now. All right. Here's the part nobody teaches you. I call it the magic
00:23:04.700
trick. That's just my own word for it. It's not really magic. But if you make a suggestion about
00:23:10.240
somebody's smaller muscle groups, smaller muscle groups, they're going to say to themselves,
00:23:17.880
is that really happening? And you're going to give them some doubt. Maybe yes. So for example,
00:23:26.820
a hypnotist might say to you, you're going to start blinking more rapidly than normal. Not much,
00:23:35.000
just a little bit. And you might not even notice it at first. But as you start to blink more rapidly
00:23:41.420
over time, you will notice it. Now, that's the magic trick. Because if you talk about somebody
00:23:49.080
blinking or yawning, or anything that gets in their mind, there are some things that happen
00:23:55.100
almost automatically. Right? If I told you, don't think of an elephant, you're going to think of an
00:23:59.900
elephant. It's just an automatic response. If you tell somebody to think about their blinking,
00:24:04.640
or they're, I don't know, that they need to swallow, these are things you were going to do
00:24:12.100
anyway. You were going to do it anyway. So that's the trick. I'm going to suggest that something's
00:24:19.040
going to happen that was going to happen anyway. You were going to blink. But do you know if you're
00:24:25.020
blinking 10% faster than you used to be? Could you tell? Because you weren't really tracking it before,
00:24:30.860
right? So if I tell you that I notice that you're blinking 10% faster, are you going to believe me?
00:24:39.420
Probably not. Does it matter? Not yet. Doesn't matter. I'm only trying to get you to maybe,
00:24:47.320
maybe, maybe it is. Now, you could do this with any of your minor muscles. I could tell you that your
00:24:57.240
hand at rest is going to feel an energy, and it's going to go to the smallest part of your hand
00:25:02.540
first. Probably your pinky. About 20% of the people who hear that sentence will feel a twitch
00:25:09.800
in their pinky. That's roughly how many people are that susceptible to that level of suggestion.
00:25:17.080
If you're not one of them, and you're in the other 80%, I'm going to tell you that I thought I saw it
00:25:22.700
move. Looks like it's starting to move. It's very slight. You might not even feel it yourself.
00:25:28.420
But as it moves, next part of the trick, I'm going to make you think past the sail.
00:25:34.620
I'm going to talk about what it feels like after it moves. I'm not going to deal with the fact that
00:25:40.420
it might not move. Never even a possibility. I'll just tell you what's going to happen after it moves
00:25:46.420
slightly. After it moves slightly, you might feel it move a little bit more. And a little bit more.
00:25:52.700
And you build on it. So whatever you can get them to think is happening, maybe,
00:25:57.620
you can nudge them into thinking, probably. And then you can nudge them further into making it
00:26:03.420
actually happen. So that's when confirmation bias kicks in, and it gets stronger as you, the
00:26:10.380
persuader, continue to call it out. There it is. There you are. You are blinking more heavily than the
00:26:17.780
last time. I can see your pinky is starting to twitch. Now it's twitching more. That twitching
00:26:22.500
might spread to your other fingers. Now, none of this works unless you've established some kind
00:26:30.340
of trust, which is a separate lesson. So just know that if the person you're working with doesn't
00:26:35.280
trust you, none of this is going to happen. Right? They're just all the walls be up. So it's
00:26:40.660
somebody who wants to experience this, generally speaking, or at least doesn't have a specific
00:26:45.940
limitation to it. Doesn't have an objection to it. Once you have gotten somebody into confirmation
00:26:53.840
bias, that the thing you're saying is causing their body to move, it will. And you have unlocked
00:27:02.700
their brain. And the things you say will go directly into their body and start expressing themselves.
00:27:10.100
Now, if you've never seen this, and if you haven't been a hypnotist, you probably haven't,
00:27:17.580
you don't really believe it. But you don't need to be under hypnosis for any of this to work.
00:27:25.940
Right? You can get there with other things. Doesn't necessarily have to be blinking or pinkies,
00:27:32.240
just any minor muscle, any physical sensation, anything that you want to start small and build
00:27:39.780
on. But I would also say you could generalize this concept to persuasion in general. Right?
00:27:47.120
Take this and generalize it to non-physical things, just changing somebody's mind, let's say.
00:27:52.540
You could start with a suggestion. You could give somebody anecdotes. Give them anecdotes that
00:28:00.360
make them say, well, I'm not really convinced by an anecdote, but maybe, maybe. So you could move
00:28:09.100
from a suggestion to a maybe just with some anecdotes. There are always some anecdotes for
00:28:14.120
everything. Then you call it out. You say, there it is, there it is, there it is again.
00:28:20.080
You see it, I see it, everybody sees it. Oh my God, there's three of them. Look at that database.
00:28:26.040
Look at that database. Next thing you know, if they trust you, again, that's where the trust
00:28:32.080
comes in. If they think you're on their side, and it helps to be on their side, confirmation
00:28:38.340
bias kicks in, and you have unlocked their brain. And you can do anything with it, if you know how.
00:28:50.440
Now, when I tell you that this might be banned on YouTube, that's actually serious. I don't know
00:28:58.920
that for sure, but I've seen some things to suggest that the deep, let's say, hypnosis techniques
00:29:08.120
are being banned on social media. I don't know it, but it looks that way. And I do have some direct
00:29:17.780
belief in that, some direct evidence of that, which I won't tell you about. All right.
00:29:26.880
I have a new mascot called Anomaly on Twitter. He's silly and entertaining and funny, and he
00:29:34.740
talks about me a lot. And so I've deemed him my mascot. And if you see him, thank him for
00:29:41.780
all he does for me, because I find him very entertaining and colorful. Jeff Pilkington tweeted
00:29:51.060
today, showing side-by-side images of the top stories on CNN and Fox News. And both of
00:29:58.620
them are disgusting. They're disgusting in their propaganda, let's say, overtness. So over
00:30:07.200
on CNN, it's a COVID death scare that's just so blatantly propaganda-ish. I'll talk about
00:30:14.080
it in a minute. And then you look at Fox News, and it's all about Jussie Smollett and race
00:30:20.080
hoaxes. So those are the two things that those networks decided your brain needs to spend more
00:30:26.040
Now, of course, the Jussie Smollett trial and even the conclusion were sort of semi-ignored
00:30:36.200
by news on the left. So there are a lot of people who just won't even know what the result was.
00:30:43.340
But on the right, it's just, you know, wall-to-wall coverage. And likewise, on the right, there's less
00:30:48.580
COVID, bad news, and on the left, there's plenty of it. And so I was asking today, what would happen
00:30:54.440
to your brain if you only consumed propaganda from one side? It doesn't matter which side.
00:31:02.520
But if you're only consuming it from one side, what's that do to your brain? Because here's
00:31:07.620
what I think it's doing. And I tweeted this. I said, if something happened to your brain that
00:31:12.660
removed a critical function, you'd call that brain damage. But the fake news has removed your
00:31:19.020
ability to effectively cope with reality. And we call that being informed. It's actually
00:31:25.580
brain damage. You are being essentially brainwashed into being blind to context.
00:31:37.220
Imagine if you got hit in the head with a rock, and you could understand everything that's happening
00:31:42.180
at the moment, but you couldn't see any context anymore. You didn't know how everything you're
00:31:46.700
doing fit into the bigger picture. That's what the fake news is doing to us. They're making
00:31:52.620
you blind to context, just like you've been hitting the head with a rock. Your brain is
00:31:57.500
actually damaged. It doesn't do what brains are supposed to do, which is automatically look
00:32:02.860
for context. Pretty much automatically, right? It takes away your pattern recognition, because
00:32:10.180
it gives you a fake pattern. Your normal ability to recognize patterns is being short-circuited
00:32:18.100
by somebody feeding you a pattern that's not going to happen on its own. That's brain damage.
00:32:25.220
If you want to give your brain a little checkup, there's an app called Ground App. So on Twitter,
00:32:30.820
you can find it at ground underscore app, and you can just run your Twitter name through it,
00:32:38.420
and it will tell you if you're consuming too much on one side, I think. It will also tell you
00:32:45.700
which news is covering which stories. So that'll help you a little bit with your brain damage.
00:32:57.380
COVID stuff, there's a story there by Miguel Marquez and Holly Ann on CNN.
00:33:02.500
And I can't tell if it's an opinion piece or news.
00:33:05.940
Because if you do a news piece, and all it is is an anecdote of one, you know, one situation,
00:33:14.740
is that news? Because it's out of context, right? Is that news or is that persuasion?
00:33:20.660
Is that opinion? I mean, I look at this, and I don't even know if it's supposed to be news.
00:33:26.900
We're so far away from having honest news that when I look at it, I go, I'm not even sure what
00:33:32.020
the intention was. Was the intention to be news? Anyway, the story is about this Michigan hospital.
00:33:39.940
And I know your opinions, but let me get to the part where you're going to like, okay?
00:33:46.100
Look, this is what one Michigan hospital says. Since January, this is a nurse there, I think,
00:33:53.220
we've had about 289 deaths. And she says 75% are unvaccinated.
00:34:01.300
And the very few vaccinated people were people who didn't get the booster. They were more than six
00:34:06.300
months past. So she said out of 289 COVID deaths, they've not had one person who had the booster
00:34:16.460
shot who died. So that's all you need to know, right? Everything you need to know. Are we satisfied?
00:34:25.580
All the context is there. We're good to go. All right, there are lots of problems with this. We'll get
00:34:32.380
to them. Then she goes on. We're seeing a lot of younger people. Oh, here we go. Here we go.
00:34:38.780
And I think, and I think that is a bit challenging, said Selden, a 20-year nursing veteran. She recalls
00:34:45.660
helping the family of a young adult to say goodbye to their loved one. Quote, it was an awful night,
00:34:51.560
she said. That was one of the days I went home and just cried. What is left out of the story?
00:34:58.300
All right, let's say the story is all true. What's left out? Here's what's left out of the
00:35:06.300
story about the young person who died, their weight, their weight. That really, really matters.
00:35:15.580
I'm sorry. I'm not, I'm kind of done ignoring that. Not that I ever did ignore it. But don't take
00:35:24.220
anything else that they say as honest. If you leave out the weight of the young person that she
00:35:30.700
saw die. Now, it could have been not overweight, which I would like to know, because that would
00:35:36.140
have actually helped their side of the story. But if it was somebody who was obese, it's important.
00:35:42.140
It's no less a tragedy, right? We're not, we're not going to dunk on somebody who died. But it's
00:35:48.220
important. And it's left out. Because it doesn't kind of fit the narrative, right?
00:35:54.700
Here's what's also not mentioned, before you say it to me a hundred times. How many people
00:36:02.140
does she know of that is strongly suspected, because it's hard to know, how many people in
00:36:07.980
the last year does she know of that they suspect died from the vaccination itself?
00:36:13.660
What do you think? Because wouldn't this story be a lot better for their side? Let's say they
00:36:25.500
wanted to promote this point of view that you should get vaccinated, which is apparently what
00:36:29.580
this story is about, trying to convince you to get vaccinated. How do you write this story honestly,
00:36:36.140
and never talk about whether it's zero? Because it could be zero. I wouldn't be surprised.
00:36:42.860
Would you be surprised if it was zero, that not a single death was attributed to the vaccination
00:36:51.980
in this one hospital? It could be zero in one hospital, because remember, there's only 289 people
00:36:58.460
who died of COVID. That's not really a lot. And if you, even if you consider that the vaccinations were
00:37:05.180
seriously dangerous, compared to any other vaccination in the past, I don't know that you'd see even one
00:37:11.900
and a 289. What does your sort of statistical common sense tell you? Even if the, even if a lot of
00:37:22.140
people were dying from COVID shots, even if that were true, which I don't have evidence of that. But
00:37:29.260
even if that were true, would you expect that you would have seen one out of 289 people who would,
00:37:36.140
you know, in the context of 289 people dying? That gives you a sizing of the hospital volume,
00:37:41.900
I guess. That's all it does. Yeah, it should be about zero. But shouldn't they mention that?
00:37:49.820
Because I feel like maybe it wasn't zero, because it was unmentioned. Because how much more powerful would
00:37:55.420
that make their case? Imagine if you saw this story, and then she said, boom, drop the mic, zero
00:38:02.460
people with vaccination problems. Well, maybe it's because it's not true. Maybe they're, maybe they've
00:38:09.820
had multiple that they suspect. What do you think? I feel like the most important part of the story was
00:38:17.100
left out. Which is, we know the benefits, you just told us. Well, tell us about the costs. Tell us
00:38:24.940
about the costs. Yeah. And, and Shecky is just saying, none of it happened. Maybe the whole story
00:38:30.620
is bullshit. Can't rule that out either. All right, well, that's clearly a bunch of fake news.
00:38:38.380
But here's the question I have for you. A lot of, I see a lot of people on social media who say the
00:38:48.620
virus is not killing anyone. It's like a mass hysteria. That people are just dying of other
00:38:54.300
causes, and it's being attributed to the virus. And, and then also people telling me that there are
00:39:00.780
so many people, you know, getting hurt by the jab, that any medical professional working in the
00:39:07.260
hospital would see it by now. So why aren't we hearing about it? Why is it that, as far as I
00:39:13.400
know, do me a fact check on this. Do me a fact check. As far as I can tell, 100% of the people
00:39:21.060
who actually work on the front line think that coronavirus is real and terrible, and that they
00:39:30.080
don't, and we're not hearing anything about vaccinations killing people. So the people who are
00:39:34.960
closest to reality, the front line medical people, are absolutely certain that COVID is a horrible
00:39:41.060
thing. Pretty much all of them, right? Have you seen a, have you seen an exception? So that doesn't
00:39:49.280
mean that tells you for sure, but I wouldn't ignore that, the people who are closest to it. All right,
00:39:55.760
here's some things that are changing my thinking on boosters. Would you like me to tell you that
00:40:03.220
I'm less inclined to get a booster? Here's my thinking. Now, when early in the pandemic,
00:40:14.360
my thinking was, the last thing I'm going to do is be first in line for a vaccination that's been,
00:40:21.140
you know, only tested as much as it's been tested, right? So I told you this up front,
00:40:26.420
that I'm going to hide, you know, socially distance for at least six months. And if people are not
00:40:33.960
dropping like flies, then I will look at all my, you know, my comorbidities, because I have asthma,
00:40:42.180
and I'm a certain age, right? So I looked at my age, I looked at my asthma, and medical science was
00:40:48.140
saying, yeah, you're in the high risk group. I said to myself, but you know what else is high risk?
00:40:52.460
risk the shot itself. But I don't know enough about either of those risks, right? I don't really
00:41:01.260
know my personal risk. There's no way to know, really. And I don't know, really, if the shot is
00:41:06.580
going to be bad for me personally, or even bad for people personally. I don't know. So I had to guess.
00:41:15.080
And one of the factors was travel and access to things. And part of it was patriotic. You know,
00:41:20.880
I thought, well, if, you know, if I can sacrifice my health, then it helps the country somehow
00:41:25.820
do my part, right? So there were a lot of considerations. And so I thought to myself,
00:41:31.640
two vaccinations, that's what they promised us. Maybe this is all we need. I signed up.
00:41:38.520
All right. Now, if you tell me I did the analysis wrong, I tell you, I just told you I guessed.
00:41:46.060
I just told you I guessed. So if you tell me I'm wrong, don't tell me I'm stupid. I just told you I
00:41:55.380
guessed, because there is not the right data. And if you think you're 100% certain in your decision,
00:42:01.080
well, I think that's hard to justify. But you may have guessed right. I mean, if your guess was purely
00:42:08.360
based on follow the money, government bad, big firm bad, you know, it's all bad, you might be right.
00:42:17.500
I swear to God, I guessed, because there's no other way to do it, right? I didn't have another option.
00:42:23.240
But things have changed. Here are the things we've learned. Number one, New York Times had this story,
00:42:28.880
fat cells apparently store the COVID and make it worse somehow. So the more fat cells you have,
00:42:35.040
the more danger. So now we have really very confirming evidence as time goes by that if
00:42:41.260
you're not overweight, you probably don't have much of a problem. I'm not overweight.
00:42:45.520
So does that change my calculation? Yes. Yes. That's new information. We suspected
00:42:52.080
that weight had a big difference. But now I'd say it's confirmed. So that's different.
00:42:58.980
We know vitamin D has a big correlation. I do everything I can to keep my vitamin D up.
00:43:03.600
It's probably better than most. Age is still a factor, but I'm sort of on the cusp age-wise.
00:43:11.060
We're now learning that asthma might not be bad for you. In fact, it might be good in terms of
00:43:16.340
protecting you. So the unambiguous information that asthma was bad for your risk has reversed
00:43:23.540
to at least we're not sure, but some say it might be good, some say it might be bad.
00:43:28.540
So that's a complete new information for me. And one of the biggest variables was my comorbidity,
00:43:35.160
which might not even be a factor. And then today I read, this is a New Zealand thing,
00:43:40.280
they're claiming that a vegetarian diet makes you 75% less odds of getting the coronavirus.
00:43:46.920
75%. I doubt that. But I'm a pescatarian, mostly vegetarian, so I figure, well, that's to my
00:43:55.960
benefit too. Then the other thing that's changed is the therapeutics, obviously. When I got the
00:44:02.920
vaccination, the therapeutics were just sort of maybe starting to come online. But I'd say in the
00:44:11.600
next six months, we're going to have some really good shit and stuff you haven't even heard about
00:44:15.680
yet. I think there's probably some stuff coming that will just be amazing. And maybe in the next
00:44:22.300
year. So put it all together. I would say that I was leaning 80-20 toward the booster shot.
00:44:33.620
Maybe a month ago. I probably was 80-20. Based on new information, new information, I'm going to
00:44:44.400
revise that to, today I would be 60% against, 40% for. Now, I think that it's likely to change before I
00:44:57.100
have to make any final decisions. And maybe if there's some mandates that just piss me off and I just want
00:45:02.440
to get past them, I might do something. But when you see that you've got a better therapeutics,
00:45:10.020
you've got sketchy behavior by the vaccine companies, you know, 75 years before we see their
00:45:14.560
numbers. Apparently, at least suggestions that they have not been forthcoming. A lot of stuff. Follow the
00:45:23.360
money, obviously. So you've got that going on. You've got, anyway. Oh, yeah. And then fast development.
00:45:34.000
And then the fact that they overpromised. As soon as you start hearing that the booster is not the
00:45:38.940
only booster, that's where you start to get, you know, way beyond my credibility level at that point.
00:45:48.380
All right. So that's where I'm at. But I could change that decision if data changes or even if it
00:45:56.620
doesn't, really. All right. Trump was really mad at Benjamin Netanyahu. I saw an Axios report that
00:46:06.660
he was mad because Netanyahu congratulated Biden, you know, earlier than a lot of countries. And so Trump
00:46:14.860
said of the former prime minister, F him. But he used the actual word. He says he likes him
00:46:22.880
personally, but he hates disloyalty. That's one of Trump's strengths, I think. And I've told you this
00:46:30.680
before. He punishes the disloyal pretty much immediately. And he praises the loyal and makes
00:46:38.180
the biggest difference between being loyal and disloyal to him. It's a good technique. I've seen
00:46:43.120
other people use it. And I don't know why anybody doesn't use it. You should have the biggest
00:46:47.800
difference between making you happy and making you unhappy. You want to increase that gap. He does
00:46:53.400
it really well. Meanwhile, there's another enormous capture of fentanyl coming across the border, which
00:47:00.240
we know the precursors originate in China. And it's part of the Chinese, obviously, ongoing operation to
00:47:08.160
kill Americans by the tens of thousands per year. But I realized recently, and I did a little research
00:47:13.920
to confirm this, that China has used their weapon of mass destruction, fentanyl. And it's definitely
00:47:21.440
a weapon of mass destruction the way they're using it. I get that it has medical uses, and they're
00:47:26.700
valuable, and you don't want to lose that. But China does use it as a weapon of mass destruction.
00:47:34.280
And by my estimate, the total Americans killed is more than all the Japanese citizens killed
00:47:43.700
in two nuclear bomb attacks Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together. If you added the only two nuclear
00:47:52.120
attacks in the world, our biggest weapons of mass destruction uses, they're smaller, smaller
00:48:00.360
than what we're already experiencing from just fentanyl from China. And yes, it's all intentional.
00:48:17.640
And so here's the question that I've got now. So here are the things we know about the coronavirus.
00:48:22.840
We know it affects fat people, and we know that the West, especially America, most adults are overweight.
00:48:30.680
China, not so much. I googled it just to make sure I knew this. But sure enough, there's some science
00:48:36.440
showing that green tea might be very good for keeping your health in the face of the coronavirus.
00:48:44.040
And you put that together with the fact that China had the best outcome of any of the countries, even
00:48:58.200
though they birthed the virus. The virus started in China, and they had the least problem with it. And
00:49:07.480
Asia in general didn't have any bad countries, did they? Name an Asian country. Name an Asian country
00:49:17.640
You can't. You can't. Now, the question is, was this virus weaponized or, wait for it, wait for it,
00:49:28.600
I've got to prime you? Was the virus weaponized or westernized?
00:49:37.160
Because if it burrows into fat and green tea knocks it out,
00:49:43.480
I got questions. I got questions. You know what I mean? I got questions.
00:49:52.280
On a different topic, a Rasmussen poll asked, how important is it to prevent cheating in elections?
00:49:58.040
90%. 90% said that's very important, or somewhat important, to prevent cheating in elections. So
00:50:06.040
that's good. Almost everybody thinks that's good. And then Rasmussen asked, is requiring voter ID
00:50:13.960
a reasonable measure to protect the integrity of the elections? Well, it turns out that whether
00:50:19.080
you're white or black, the answer is about the same, according to the poll. And altogether,
00:50:25.400
all people voting as one in this great melting pot of a country, 75% of them say that requiring voter ID
00:50:34.760
is a reasonable measure. 75% think voter ID is a reasonable measure. Subtract 75 from 100. 25%
00:50:47.560
don't think requiring voter ID is a reasonable measure. And then Rasmussen asked, did Joe Biden
00:51:02.040
win the 2020 election fairly? 53% of the country said yes. Obviously, it breaks down by political parties
00:51:10.600
and stuff. But 47% of the country said no or they're not sure. Not sure is bad enough that I threw it in
00:51:19.960
with no. 47%. 47% of the country isn't sure we even live in a republic with a democratic election
00:51:34.680
process. They're not even sure they live in a country that is what it advertises. Are they wrong?
00:51:41.000
I don't know. How would we know? Because the system is unauditable. If you have this many people who
00:51:49.640
aren't sure if they even voted, I mean, I'm paraphrasing here. That's not what they say. But
00:51:55.480
you have to fix that. You have to fix that. Government. If Trump ran on that alone,
00:52:05.080
it would be a landslide. If he just went in and said, yeah, yeah, we'll talk about all the other
00:52:09.400
stuff. You know how I feel about it. But we have to have elections that can be audited.
00:52:14.360
We're just going to fix that. Just give me that. Just elect me for another term. I'll fix your damn
00:52:20.920
election system so they can be audited all the way through and instantly. That's all I'm going to give
00:52:26.760
you. Everything else is going to come through the election system. I will be the least monarch of
00:52:33.560
anybody who ever was a leader. Because I'm going to put you in power in a way you've never been in
00:52:39.800
power before. The power to know you actually fucking voted. And it got counted. If Trump
00:52:47.000
gives me that, I'm all in. I'm all in. I don't think he will, by the way. I think he'll just
00:52:52.760
bitch about the last election and it won't be effective. But if he gives me, I'm not going to
00:52:57.880
talk about the past. Let's talk about the future. If he gives me that, all in. All in.
00:53:06.760
Because like I've said, I like presidents who fix like a few big problems and then leave.
00:53:12.360
Because maybe the next president's better for whatever problems are left.
00:53:18.280
Here's a hypothesis I'm working on that the younger you are, the fewer hoaxes you've seen.
00:53:22.760
Does that seem fair? The younger you are, the fewer hoaxes you've seen. And so what would
00:53:30.440
be the natural impact of that? You would be less skeptical. You'd be more gullible, right? Not
00:53:41.240
because you're dumb. No. Not because you're uneducated. Young people are actually more educated
00:53:46.680
than their seniors. So nothing wrong with you. Just young. You should, theoretically,
00:53:55.880
be more trusting of things just because you haven't seen as many tricks as people like me have seen.
00:54:02.360
So how does that break down? The people who are sure about the election being fair.
00:54:08.360
If you were between 18 and 39, so these are the youngest that were asked, 61% of the people said the
00:54:17.240
election was fair. You get a little older, 40 to 64, and only 53% thought it was fair. So from that age
00:54:28.200
group, it drops from 61% thought it was good to 53%. How about if you keep going?
00:54:36.200
65 and older, only 43% trusted the election. Once you get to a certain age, your ability to trust the
00:54:46.520
government just falls off a table. Now, who's right? I don't know. On any given issue,
00:54:55.880
maybe the young people are more right. Maybe the experienced people are more right. You know,
00:55:02.200
it depends on the issue. But in general, if you're young, I would ask you to just consider
00:55:10.280
that people who've been around longer have seen more bullshit than you have and probably can spot
00:55:15.000
it faster. Probably. Not all of us. Like I said, it takes training. If you don't have training,
00:55:21.160
you're probably not going to be good at it. But once you reach a certain age, you can sniff
00:55:25.640
things out a little faster. And maybe you're over-skeptical. I mean, that could be a possibility,
00:55:38.680
That is the end of my prepared comments. I think I delivered on the best live stream you've
00:55:46.440
ever seen in your entire life. I think that's just an easy claim. Totally objectively true.
00:55:53.240
There's no subjectivity. Oops, one more has to go. Sorry, I break kids legs. That comment gets
00:56:00.840
you banned. Scott finally wakes up. He's waking up. Oh, wait, maybe that's just being sarcastic.
00:56:10.360
Finally wakes up every morning. Well, I can't tell if you're actually saying that or if you're
00:56:15.480
being joking about other people saying it. So I will spare you because I'm not sure if that was
00:56:22.120
the comment that I don't like. Yeah, I might have been. Was it tingly?
00:56:39.080
The one thing you need to know is that you're always free to wake up from your own hypnosis.
00:56:44.280
Doesn't matter who hypnotizes you. You have the power.
00:56:50.600
Are Fridays any big deal for you? Do you care about weekends? Only as it affects other family members,
00:56:57.880
which in turn affects me. But I work every day, so there's no difference when I wake up.
00:57:03.000
So how do we do this persuasion? And why are you gates of Trump not using it to take over the world?
00:57:15.880
Well, Trump used it to take over the presidency. And there's a pretty good chance he's going to do it
00:57:21.320
a second time. So I would say that people are using it. You know, I've told you this before,
00:57:26.280
but it's hard to describe. My filter on the world is I see a war of wizards, basically. The persuaders
00:57:36.920
who know how to do it at a commercial, professional level. And, you know, they're on different teams and
00:57:43.080
they're working toward different topics and stuff. But to me, it looks like a war of wizards that is
00:57:48.680
completely invisible to the muggles. More true Hollywood stories you want?
00:57:59.720
Oh, a predictions micro lesson. All right, I'll do that. Over on Locals, I do micro lessons, little
00:58:06.520
two to four minute lessons. I've got over 200 of them now. And each of them is designed to give you a
00:58:12.680
life skill, like an actual practical, real thing that makes a difference, but in two minutes.
00:58:19.080
So I was asked to do one on making predictions, which I can do. All right.
00:58:28.200
Don't agree we oldsters sense hoaxes more reliably. Well, it's definitely true that seniors are
00:58:36.200
conned more easily. That's true. But when they're looking at politics,
00:58:43.320
I think they see patterns better. When they look at an individual con, like a con person, you know,
00:58:49.800
tries to get some money from them, that might be the first time they've ever seen one.
00:58:55.080
So it's not like most people have a lifetime of experience with like in-person cons,
00:59:01.080
but they've been watching the news for a long time.
00:59:03.560
How do we become a wizard? You should Google the phrase persuasion reading list.
00:59:16.760
You'll see a bunch of books on persuasion. But read Winn Bigley, my book to start.
00:59:23.960
Can you name drop a few of those wizards? Oh, I can't. I can't. Maybe I can think of a few. I mean,
00:59:43.480
The University of Utah fusion scam. Well, if all you do is say that every fusion breakthrough is fake,
00:59:50.280
you so far would have been right 100% of the time. So that's a good example of how a senior would be
00:59:58.200
right all the time. But here's the problem. I don't know that it'll be right in five years,
01:00:02.840
because the fusion stuff finally looks real. It's been reduced to an engineering problem, I'm told,
01:00:10.920
which means it's solvable. All right. I'm not up to date on Assange. I want to catch up on that
01:00:19.560
before I have an opinion. But I will talk about that. Is Joe a wizard? No. Obama was. Bill Clinton was.
01:00:26.520
Those are some of them. AOC, for sure. But there are also persuaders behind the curtain that
01:00:35.880
will remain behind the curtain. All right. That's all for now. I'll talk to you later. Bye on YouTube.