Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1624 Scott Adams： Does This Work？

00:00:00.000 So if you're just joining me on YouTube, both of my iPad devices, which are new and have the new

00:00:15.740 software, they're crashing when I try to use YouTube. And it's sort of a sudden problem that's

00:00:21.740 across multiple devices. And I don't know if it's organic. So I was just trying to figure out

00:00:29.620 working with just the locals people, whether I'm being targeted or whether it's just the

00:00:36.100 biggest coincidence in the world. It might be. But how would you like to enjoy a little

00:00:43.200 thing I call the simultaneous sip? I'm pretty sure you would like to. Right? You'd love

00:00:50.520 to. And all you need is a copper mug or a glass of tank or chalice of style, a canteen jug

00:00:56.740 or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee. And

00:01:03.020 join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine the other day, the thing that makes

00:01:06.640 everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip. Yeah. And it's going to happen now. Go.

00:01:13.540 Oh, yeah. That's good. That will make everything except my technology work better. All right.

00:01:25.140 Let me blow your mind. You ready? Who wants their mind blown? I've been forever curious why

00:01:36.280 it's so difficult, given modern technology, to do easily a split screen with a guest.

00:01:48.560 Right? Now, you know that people do it all the time in recorded scenarios. And you know

00:01:56.160 that networks can do it. So a big network can do a split screen with guests. And that way

00:02:01.980 you can have a pro and a con guest. I'm starting to wonder, and put on your conspiracy hat. You

00:02:10.440 ready? This is just pure conspiracy. We all enjoy conspiracy theories, right? Am I right

00:02:17.320 that you regard them as entertaining? Because I sure do. Here's my conspiracy theory. Why is

00:02:25.300 it that there's not a popular, easy to use product for somebody like me to very quickly put two

00:02:34.900 experts up to figure out what's true? Do you think that's because we can't figure out how

00:02:40.900 to do it live? Now, you can do it recorded, but that's a big friction. And it takes away some

00:02:47.900 of the fun. But I'm starting to wonder if we had that technology, it would be a complete transfer of

00:02:57.260 power. Would you watch the news if you could watch a high-end podcaster? Doesn't have to be me,

00:03:07.120 right? I'm not sure I'm a high-end podcaster. I'm sort of a, you know, medium-sized podcaster.

00:03:13.040 But imagine, if you would, that some, you know, everything is about Joe Rogan, because Trump's

00:03:22.460 not making enough news lately. Yeah, I know you say StreamYard, but it's not true, all right? I know

00:03:28.360 you say that there are solutions, but they all have the same problem, which is a lag. So there's

00:03:34.060 either a lag, so you can't see the, you can't see the comments in real time, or so there's always

00:03:41.080 some kind of a technology lag. But, you know, StreamYard's getting there, maybe. Now, can

00:03:47.620 StreamYard, you do two call-in guests at the same time? That's what you need, at least. All

00:03:56.980 right, so I'm wondering what would happen when somebody like me could bring on two guests and

00:04:02.500 actually give you an actual answer what's true, or something close to it. I think that would

00:04:09.240 completely neuter the fake news, because you would have a complete total replacement for

00:04:15.320 news. Interesting, isn't it? I remember it was several years ago, I saw a quote by Mark

00:04:23.400 Cuban, and he said that if you wanted to know what the news is, he checks Twitter. He doesn't

00:04:30.060 check the news. I mean, you wouldn't go necessarily to CNN.com or FoxNews.com. He'd go to Twitter.

00:04:37.300 And I bet, I would say the same, right? Wouldn't you? Because Twitter will get all the network

00:04:44.640 sources, but it also gets all the independents and all the individuals. It's going to get the

00:04:50.160 person with a phone who took a picture of the event. So Twitter, in many ways, has already sort of

00:04:58.700 siphoned off a lot of the energy from the major platforms. But imagine if you could go to Twitter

00:05:03.880 and easily call up Tim Poole, just to pick a name. And Tim Poole already had on the two experts

00:05:12.480 who are giving you the real news about what's true and what isn't about the headline. It'd be hard to

00:05:19.540 watch the regular news, wouldn't it? I mean, that little bit of technology that lets you do that

00:05:25.100 quickly and painlessly. Just the difference in reducing the friction of how hard it is to do that

00:05:32.340 is going to change the entire nature of power, basically. The entire power structure of the

00:05:40.440 world would be transformed by that technology. And why don't we have it? So that's the thing,

00:05:47.940 is if you realize how powerful that would be, it would just completely transfer power to

00:05:53.500 independent people who are giving you the news. Maybe there's a reason we don't have it. Just

00:06:01.200 wondering. That's my conspiracy theory. All right. On February 1st, the American public

00:06:06.220 will reclaim its sovereignty over its own health decisions. We appreciate the government's assistance

00:06:13.580 during the crisis. The crisis is over. Do you know what a fake because is? A fake because

00:06:25.000 is sort of something I came up with that's a name for something Childini talks about. A fake

00:06:31.740 because is when you give somebody a reason that isn't really a strong reason, but you didn't need

00:06:38.000 one because you're talking somebody into something that they wanted to get talked into.

00:06:43.580 So when somebody wants to be talked into something, they need any reason. They don't need a good

00:06:49.900 reason. Just any reason. So that's the fake because. It's the fake reason. The government

00:06:56.640 wants to get out of the business of regulating the public. The government does not really want to be

00:07:05.240 telling you to wear face masks. The government doesn't want to mandate things. It's a very uncomfortable

00:07:12.000 thing for the government to do because it will never win all your love doing that. It's just not

00:07:17.860 good politically. So in my opinion, the government wants to be talked out of it, but needs data. It

00:07:25.560 needs a reason. They can't just arbitrarily say, well, we were deeply involved, but now we're just going

00:07:31.640 to walk away. Can't do that, right? But as the Omicron takes over and the vaccinations have reached a

00:07:39.760 certain rate and therapeutics are a certain place and the people who are going to die,

00:07:45.760 unfortunately, many of them did, we're at a whole new place. And the government would like to get out

00:07:51.740 of the business of regulating the specifics of your health decisions. They really would. Now,

00:07:58.340 I know you think to yourself, I don't know. I think it's a big plot to control your life.

00:08:03.620 Can you hold that bet? I'll make a bet with you that the government wants to unwind this as fast

00:08:10.520 as you do. It just doesn't quite know how. Well, it's not quite time yet, I suppose would be another

00:08:16.860 way to say it. And I don't have any worry that you're going to be wearing masks forever,

00:08:22.340 like none. But if you do, let's just agree to check on it in a year. If we're wearing masks in a

00:08:31.400 year, number one, you won't have to worry about me because I'll put a bullet in my fucking head 0.99

00:08:36.380 if that's the case. But I don't think we're going to be wearing a mask in a year.

00:08:42.500 So let's just hold that. You know, if you think we are, I won't fight with you. Let's just check it

00:08:48.260 in a year. So you was right. And so the fake because is this, that the public is powered up

00:08:55.360 and gave it a deadline. A deadline is a fake because. But it's also not a crisis anymore.

00:09:03.040 So the moment we, the public, tell our government that the crisis is over, we appreciate the assistance,

00:09:11.900 you don't have to get into what they did wrong. That's a separate conversation. But there's no doubt

00:09:16.820 that the government worked very hard on, I think, on behalf of the public, you know, mostly, right?

00:09:25.140 So I do think you need to thank the government for its hard work, even with the flaws, nothing's

00:09:31.960 perfect. And I think we need to give them permission to end the crisis. The government needs your

00:09:39.880 permission, you, the public, to define it as no longer a crisis. So let's do that. February 1st,

00:09:48.560 the crisis is over. And that's the fake because. The fake because doesn't replace the fact that there

00:09:55.880 are lots of perfectly good reasons that have existed for a while now. I'm just saying that sometimes you

00:10:02.840 need a political reason. And the fake because is the crisis is over. So the more you can say

00:10:09.480 that the crisis is over, the less reason there is for the government to have any control over your

00:10:15.700 sovereignty. So that's the argument. Give the government a reason. Give them a reason and thank

00:10:21.760 them. Thank you, government. Here's your reason to stop doing it. I have a question for you. You've all

00:10:29.460 noticed that the troll activity kicked up around January 1st, I assume, because it's an election

00:10:35.240 year, right? And I can't tell what percentage of my critics are trolls, but the ones who are just,

00:10:42.240 you know, shouting it, shouting me down and trying to make my life harder appear to be paid. But I

00:10:48.620 can't confirm that. We know that there are past reports of that exact thing, of people being paid

00:10:55.540 to pester anybody who was pro-Trump, for example. So I'm assuming that these are paid people, but I'm

00:11:01.700 trying to figure out exactly how they imagine their mission. If in fact, if in fact, that's what they

00:11:09.700 are. What would it look like? Would the goal of the trolls be to simply siphon off my energy? So I'm

00:11:17.560 putting less energy into whatever they don't like? Is that it? Are they trying to degrade my influence?

00:11:25.540 By changing my brand so people don't pay attention to me? Is that what it is?

00:11:33.600 Are they trying to make me quit talking about politics? Like, I wonder if they actually talk

00:11:41.000 about it that way, or conceive of it in that specific way, or is it really just as general

00:11:47.540 as go pester those people? I mean, what would the pestering, what would it do? What's the mechanism of

00:11:55.640 why that would be a good thing that you would pay for? I mean, I think it probably does work. And I think

00:12:01.940 it's real. I just would love to hear an insider explain their thinking. Have you ever heard it?

00:12:11.420 Yeah. You know, and people have asked me why I respond to trolls. Do you ever wonder about that?

00:12:18.160 Because I probably respond to trolls maybe more than any public figure ever has responded to trolls.

00:12:25.140 Do you ever wonder about that? You know, the people who are operating at, let's say, not a very deep

00:12:33.360 level, imagine that I'm triggered and that, you know, I've lost it, etc. Well, let's consider the

00:12:44.720 recent example of my tirade against a troll named Shelly. Not my ex-wife, even though that's her name,

00:12:52.400 coincidentally. And Shelly said some, what I thought were some unkind things to me and untrue

00:13:01.540 on YouTube. And I said some things back to Shelly and that became a meme because apparently when you

00:13:09.080 use the C word and in the context of other F words and you're talking directly to a woman, 0.92

00:13:16.120 people think that that needs to be a meme. So it's going all over the internet still.

00:13:20.960 And the people say to me, well, I guess he's lost it. I guess he's lost it. But let me ask you this.

00:13:30.320 Do you really think I couldn't have controlled that? Did anybody think that while it was happening,

00:13:36.980 I didn't have the cognitive ability to predict how that would turn out and to make a conscious

00:13:45.420 decision and a risk management decision about how that would go? Of course, I could control that.

00:13:54.060 I chose not to. That was a conscious decision to release my control and just let the dog out.

00:14:04.280 But I let the dog out intentionally. I didn't, the dog didn't get out on its own.

00:14:08.460 Like it's not an independent dog. When I let the dog out, I'm putting the key in the lock and

00:14:15.460 turning it. I know what I'm doing. Now, some would say it's a bad decision.

00:14:20.120 The people who say that was a bad decision, I'm going to make a bet. I don't have data on this,

00:14:27.640 but I'm going to make a bet. Those who thought it was a very bad decision are probably not themselves

00:14:32.860 famous. And maybe you never will be. Because famous people treat energy differently than the

00:14:42.180 rest of you. Yeah, if you're an energy monster, as I like to use the phrase, you can create energy

00:14:48.600 and then just surf it. You know, you don't have to be pulled under the wave. You can surf it. Now,

00:14:56.000 it's dangerous. And if you don't know how to surf it, well, you're going to drown. But if you do know

00:15:00.460 how to surf it, and that's probably how you got famous in the first place, then energy means

00:15:06.220 something different. It's never an enemy. Now, was the thing that people tried to get me banned for

00:15:13.520 that I went hard and especially use such a vulgar term against a woman? What do you think? Was that

00:15:22.220 really the essence of why they were decided that, you know, that particular tirade would be the one

00:15:28.440 that they forwarded? Because do you think they would have forwarded that if I'd sent it to a man?

00:15:33.580 If exactly the same thing had happened, and I even used the same words, if it had been a man,

00:15:40.920 would that have been a meme and something? No, it wouldn't. So let me say this. For all of you

00:15:49.000 that were concerned that I used such a word when I spoke to a woman directly, at least in terms of the

00:15:58.760 comments, I would say that you're a bunch of sexist troglodytes. Because the way I treat a woman 1.00

00:16:08.400 who comes at me first, at least in the verbal sense, right? We're not talking about in the

00:16:15.240 physical world. That's a different standard. But in the exchange of ideas world, I'm not going to

00:16:23.200 treat a woman differently. Because I'm not a sexist when it comes to opinions. I'm a sexist when it

00:16:32.340 comes to physical confrontation. And I hope most of you are too. Because, you know, there's a size

00:16:39.560 difference. There's a danger difference. That has to be recognized. But when it's a battle of opinions,

00:16:45.000 am I going to treat women like they're children? Fuck no. No. If you come at me, you're going to get 1.00

00:16:53.280 exactly the same treatment. Because I have respect. That's why. You know, I don't think you quite

00:17:03.520 understand that when I went after Shelly, it's because I believe she can handle it. It's not because

00:17:13.300 I believed I would crush her because she was a woman. No, I believe that just like every other 1.00

00:17:18.460 man who comes after me on social media, that they can dish it out. And in all likelihood,

00:17:24.480 they can take it. And in fact, I don't think anybody's really bothered when, you know, somebody

00:17:29.380 who's a celebrity or minor celebrity in my case, I don't think anybody cares if a minor celebrity

00:17:34.980 curses at them in public. Do you? Don't you think it just was a funny story she told her family

00:17:40.920 before they disowned her? I don't think that anything was bad happening on her end. I was

00:17:49.700 just getting out some, you know, getting out some feelings and having fun with it. So if any of you

00:17:55.040 took any of that too seriously, maybe you shouldn't. Maybe you shouldn't. But let me promise you

00:18:01.880 that when it comes to the war of ideas and words, I'm going to treat women equally. And I hope

00:18:09.100 that that doesn't bother you. Well, actually, I don't care if it bothers you. So more accurately,

00:18:15.480 I don't care at all. All right. I feel like this is too much about me. Let's talk about something

00:18:23.080 else. I wanted to ask one of my smartest people I know who was a Biden supporter.

00:18:30.680 And I wanted to say, how do you think it's going? I wanted to pick somebody who is like really good

00:18:39.960 at arguing and thinking things through and seeing the big picture. So yesterday, when Biden was at

00:18:49.660 his lowest approval, and it looked like the worst week ever, I thought, well, this would be a good

00:18:54.380 time to revisit some of the people who were really happy that Biden got elected. Just see if they had

00:19:00.980 any second thoughts. And so I thought I was going to be dunking pretty hard. And I won't name names,

00:19:07.660 but somebody, just somebody very smart. And I asked how they thought it was going. And this person

00:19:13.820 pointed out the following, that the only thing that matters to the future of the world is AI.

00:19:19.560 And Trump was bad on AI. And Biden's good at it. And all of the other stuff doesn't matter.

00:19:31.600 So let me say that again. So the argument was Biden's, you know, everything seems to be going

00:19:36.740 wrong, you know, from the outside in his worst week. And then the argument in support of him was

00:19:44.300 that none of it matters compared to AI. I mean, it all matters, of course. But compared to AI,

00:19:50.140 it's not even in the ballpark of importance. Because the entire future, especially competing

00:19:57.180 with China, is going to be AI. And if you don't realize that, then you're arguing about all the

00:20:03.420 small ball stuff, while the future of humanity is basically just AI, right? I'm extending the argument

00:20:11.280 a little bit for a purpose. But I heard that argument. So that would be an argument if you

00:20:19.840 looked at the only thing that was really, really important to the future. Trump wasn't as good as

00:20:24.820 Biden. Biden's got some more funding, I guess, for that. I will now judge that argument.

00:20:31.740 You ready? Here's my judgment on that argument. Accepted. Argument accepted.

00:20:46.540 Now, I'll give you a little pushback. All right? Because, you know, not every argument is clean.

00:20:52.700 Number one, how does anybody know how the United States is doing in AI?

00:21:01.020 That is unknowable. How do you know how we're doing compared to China?

00:21:07.180 Totally unknowable, right? Now, not just because the government would keep it a secret,

00:21:13.060 obviously. But do you think you know what the AI startup that Elon Musk is involved with?

00:21:21.540 And I think Sam Altman might be in that as well. Do you think you know what that's doing?

00:21:27.780 Of course you don't. Do you think you know what that will do next month?

00:21:33.660 What is Elon Musk's AI going to be doing next month? Absolutely no idea. Do you think somebody

00:21:42.080 in China is getting ready to dunk on whatever Elon Musk put together with the other investors?

00:21:50.520 We're all... By the way, these are the top, smartest people in Silicon Valley and not in

00:21:56.760 Silicon Valley. All right, we're talking about the smartest Americans putting together privately

00:22:03.720 various AI enterprises. Compared to the government of China investing like a mofo to really, you know,

00:22:14.980 and stealing probably as much as they can. Who's going to win? And let me ask you this. Would it have

00:22:22.560 mattered much if Trump had funded it more? You know, you do kind of think that the more money,

00:22:30.220 the better, right? I mean, that's a good... Generally speaking, the more money, the better.

00:22:35.380 But I don't know if that matters for AI. Because do you know what can get all the money it wants?

00:22:43.000 A good AI startup. Am I wrong? I'll take a fact check on that. Because I made an assumption there

00:22:49.160 that I don't think I have backing for. But if anybody is in the venture capital business,

00:22:55.020 can you confirm that? That if you had a promising AI startup, the only thing you wouldn't have to work

00:23:01.940 out is getting funding. So is money even a factor? I mean, money is a factor in everything.

00:23:09.460 But if you can always get all the money you want, almost as soon as you want, relatively speaking,

00:23:17.060 does it matter that China might have government funded something and Biden did a better job of

00:23:24.000 funding than Trump did? I don't know. But so there, I think you could separate

00:23:31.860 two questions. Question number one is, will the United States beat China in AI? Completely

00:23:37.760 unknowable, but I would bet on the United States with or without funding. So I would have bet on

00:23:43.700 the United States under Trump, if he had funded the same way. And I would have bet the same under Biden.

00:23:51.780 Now, here's the second question. Biden did his funding in a year that Trump wasn't president.

00:23:58.360 If Trump had won a second term, do you think that Trump's own experts would have convinced him to

00:24:05.760 beef up the AI budget? I don't know. Do you? Maybe it would have happened at the same time.

00:24:14.180 Maybe, maybe the reason the funding got approved under Biden is that it was time and that we had

00:24:21.020 learned, you know, more about what China was doing and the argument just came together.

00:24:26.780 Do we imagine that Congress, the way it's constituted now, would have been, let's say, in favor of more

00:24:35.240 AI funding this year, but would not have in the final year of Trump's administration? I mean, did the

00:24:42.820 nature of Congress change that much that AI would have been more or less valuable within those just few

00:24:50.800 years? Don't know. Don't know. But let's get back to the argument that AI is the big thing.

00:25:01.900 I will, I will see your AI and I will raise you Space Force. I would argue that Trump putting Space

00:25:11.580 Force together is going to be more important in the future than a lot of things, still less than AI.

00:25:20.040 I'm going to give AI the edge as being more important than space, but you also have to have

00:25:25.780 space. You also have to have it. And Trump was strong on that, put together Space Force.

00:25:31.400 So from a real world perspective, it's hard to say that Trump did worse in AI because nobody knows

00:25:40.340 how it's going to go or even if the funding would have made any difference. But I will agree with

00:25:44.840 the statement that Trump did less on AI and it was maybe our, there's a real good argument, it's the

00:25:52.480 biggest priority. I don't see anything wrong with that argument. So now you may be saying, and I'm

00:26:00.900 thinking this too, that if that's the argument you come back with, and by the way, there were a

00:26:05.460 number of other arguments about, you know, Trump versus Biden that were, I would say, second tier

00:26:11.080 arguments that were fairly strong. You know, there are definitely some things that, that Trump was not

00:26:18.580 excelling at, no doubt about that. Anyway, very interesting. I thought it was a strong defense

00:26:25.680 in, in a context in which I didn't think there would be any, although I don't know if it matters

00:26:32.160 really, funding wise. Trump gave a rally yesterday and of course he goes, he goes right for the

00:26:40.460 dangerous stuff because that's what makes him Trump. And he said this, he said that white people

00:26:46.100 are being discriminated against on the, in the COVID sense. He goes, quote, if you're white,

00:26:52.560 you don't get the vaccine, or if you're white, you don't get therapeutics in New York state. If you're

00:26:58.040 white, you go to the back of the line if you want help. Here's my question. Is that going to get

00:27:06.660 fact-checked? And if it is, what would that fact-check look like? And shouldn't we insist that that be

00:27:13.780 fact-checked? Because do they only fact-check things that are untrue? Because he's making quite a

00:27:20.060 provocative claim. I believe you fact-checked things that are true as well as things that are

00:27:25.360 untrue. Should we not all of us push for a fact-check on this? True or false? And by the way, I don't know

00:27:33.660 if it's true. Honestly, I've read the stories and I'm still not sure it's true because it has the feel

00:27:43.480 of something that shouldn't be true. Like, you know, it's a little too on the nose. Like for, for the,

00:27:52.660 let's say the conservative Republican point of view, it's a little too perfect. Isn't it?

00:28:02.520 Now, again, I read the stories and they look very convincing. I guess, I guess if I had to bet my life

00:28:09.020 on it, I'd bet they're true. But you should be a little worried about the on the nose thing.

00:28:17.700 Be a little worried about that. It doesn't, that's not a, it's not a hundred percent predictor,

00:28:23.060 but it's weirdly on the nose. So I'd like to see it get fact-checked. Now, it would be hilarious if it

00:28:30.040 got fact-checked as true. Because what do you do with that? Yes, it's a fact that the government has

00:28:37.580 been fact-checked and it is a racist government. Wouldn't the fact-check say that? If, if Trump is

00:28:45.340 right. And if Trump is not right, seriously, we need to know that, right? Because I feel like he's

00:28:54.300 probably right. If I'm wrong about him being probably right about that, I would seriously want to know

00:29:00.380 that before somebody else points it out, right? I don't want to get in a Twitter, Twitter battle with

00:29:05.020 somebody who fact-checks me on that. And I found out it was never real. So fact-check it. Let us know.

00:29:13.380 Do we live in a racist country that has decided that the health of white people will be subordinate

00:29:19.180 to the health of the others or not? Let's find out.

00:29:24.100 Do you know what way you could make sure that the most people hated you? One way would be stealing

00:29:37.000 money. You know, probably the two most hated people for, you know, reasons, lots of reasons. But

00:29:44.400 is it a coincidence that the two biggest philanthropists are also the most hated?

00:29:50.460 Because I don't think it is. I don't think it is. And I've mentioned this before, but I have some new

00:29:58.720 thinking about this. The George Soros question, to me, fascinates me, not on a political level,

00:30:07.260 although that's interesting, but on the why can't I figure it out level. So there's a mystery that I'm

00:30:14.400 just drawn to, which is what the hell is going on with George Soros? Now, I've heard all of your

00:30:21.740 theories. I've heard all your theories, and we'll talk about them. But here's what I'm going to add

00:30:27.240 to the conversation that I haven't added before. I'll use an analogy. Recently, I talked about how,

00:30:34.840 if you're looking at the question of masks, which we're not going to talk about, just a quick reference,

00:30:39.460 that I used an engineering perspective to look at them. And if you used a different perspective,

00:30:47.060 such as a scientific one, you'd actually get a different answer. And I thought that the engineering

00:30:51.700 approach was probably the better one for masks, because they are kind of an engineering solution,

00:30:57.440 even more than a scientific solution. And so the engineering solution gives you, you know,

00:31:04.720 maybe a different answer than some other filter would. But if you use the right filter, you're

00:31:09.240 going to get the right answer. And I would say that when you look at the George Soros mystery,

00:31:14.460 what the hell is he up to and why? Some of you don't think it's a mystery. I get that.

00:31:19.880 But I think the best filters for that are persuasion,

00:31:25.860 and maybe economics.

00:31:33.380 Well, actually, I'd say two different ones. I'm going to say economics would be a good filter for

00:31:38.180 understanding Soros. You know, how is he trying to profit, for example, right? Because if you didn't

00:31:44.940 understand economics, you wouldn't understand how he could, let's say, drive down a currency and still

00:31:51.280 make money. You wouldn't understand how disrupting things would give you an opportunity to invest,

00:31:59.440 right? So you should have a background in economics to have a, you know, a pretty solid opinion on what

00:32:06.580 George Soros may or may not be up to, which might be different from what he says he's up to, right?

00:32:13.240 The other filter is the Gell-Mann filter. Now, the Gell-Mann filter says that if you're famous

00:32:19.840 or actually more generally, if you're an expert on something and you read about it in the news,

00:32:26.400 you know that it's fake because you're an expert. But the very next story you read is not in your

00:32:31.780 expertise. And you think, oh, that one's probably true. But the people in that expertise are saying

00:32:37.400 that's not true. So you easily are confused in thinking that the news might be mostly true and

00:32:43.880 just coincidentally wrong about your expertise. But in fact, when you're famous, as I am,

00:32:51.840 you realize that the stories about yourself are almost never true. Almost never. So what are the

00:32:59.020 odds that I, as a famous person who has read many, many articles about myself and opinions about myself,

00:33:06.120 and I can see that they're almost always wrong, at least in some large, large ways. And when they

00:33:14.160 do the mind reading thing, where they imagine whoever it is, imagines they know what I'm thinking,

00:33:20.680 that's always wrong. Like always. So should I believe that after seeing, I guess, maybe thousands and

00:33:32.080 thousands of opinions about me, and seeing how wrong they are universally over a 30-year career,

00:33:39.560 why would I believe that anything said about anybody else famous was true? Why would I believe

00:33:46.200 that anything you said about, pick a famous person? It doesn't even matter who. Just any famous person.

00:33:53.380 Why would you believe it was true? Especially the parts about what they're thinking. Because that's

00:33:58.760 the part they get wrong with me 100% of the time. So if you're not famous, and you hear a bunch of

00:34:06.060 things about a famous person, you probably think they're probably true, don't you? Wouldn't your mind

00:34:14.000 go there? Probably true. It's like if you get accused of a crime. If you see somebody being tried

00:34:20.500 for murder, do you think they're probably innocent? No. No, they're charged with murder. They're

00:34:26.600 probably guilty. So if you don't know economics, and you're not famous, you're going to see Soros

00:34:36.380 completely different than if you have those two perspectives. And if you only had one, but not

00:34:41.540 the other, I think you'd still be confused about him. Now here's the other part of the mystery.

00:34:46.900 Have you tried to do a search on George Soros to find out what his opinion is, especially about

00:34:53.220 open borders? Because that's the one people talk about the most. Go to Google, your favorite, or even

00:35:00.920 DuckDuckGo. I don't think it matters. And just try to search and find out what Soros thinks about

00:35:09.140 open borders. I couldn't find them. I spent some time this morning looking for it, because I wanted to

00:35:16.600 like remind myself, what is it he thinks is a good idea? You can't find it. Now, did he do that?

00:35:25.320 Who did that? Now, it could be, because the search engines believe that the theories about why he's

00:35:33.320 doing what he's doing aren't true. So they may have just scrubbed them. Or did he do it? I don't know.

00:35:39.740 But I know you can't find it. So the only thing that I could find readily, I'm sure if I spent

00:35:46.540 another hour and went page by page into the 25th page or something, DuckDuckGo gave me the same

00:35:53.660 outcome. Try it. See, that's the weird part, is that if DuckDuckGo had given me different results,

00:36:00.560 then I'd know what was happening. But that's not what's happening. It's just gone. I don't know

00:36:09.740 where it is. If it was ever there, I don't know. Maybe it was never there. That could be part of

00:36:14.100 the mystery. So I have this huge mystery about it. And let me talk about the economics. I heard that,

00:36:20.020 here's some things I heard about him. That, first of all, did you know he's giving away his fortune?

00:36:24.960 All right. So here's somebody who's giving away, and it's confirmed. It is going away. His fortune

00:36:32.680 started, you know, big, and now it's smaller. And he's very aggressively giving it away.

00:36:40.600 Look, here's a case of cognitive dissonance right here. In all caps, Scott speaking out of ignorance,

00:36:47.660 says the right-laying bandit. Now, what is it when somebody yells at you in caps

00:36:52.500 and makes just sort of like a generic thing? Now, isn't the entire thing that I'm talking about

00:36:59.660 right now my ignorance? Wasn't my point my ignorance? I said there's a mystery. I don't

00:37:06.720 understand. I'm therefore ignorant. So the troll comes in, and then he says, Scott is ignorant.

00:37:16.180 That's what I'm saying. See, you're trolling. You can't even troll properly.

00:37:23.640 You're so fucking dumb, you can't even troll properly. And I've got to think that's got to

00:37:27.880 be the lowest bar for talent there could ever be. Here, troll, I'd like you to go in and insult 0.99

00:37:35.900 this guy. Just say whatever he says is true. Just say the opposite. Okay, I got it. Whatever he

00:37:44.300 says is true, I'll troll out by saying the opposite. Got it. Got it. And then I say, well,

00:37:53.860 I don't understand what's going on here. And the troll says, you don't understand what's going on

00:37:58.320 here, in all caps. And I wonder if there's any kind of a performance review for trolls. Like,

00:38:05.600 does he have a boss? Is the boss going to look at that and say, God, there was one fucking rule.

00:38:13.180 You listen to what he says, you disagree with it. How many times do I have to tell you? Don't agree

00:38:21.340 with him. Disagree with him. The all caps part is brilliant. I like that you did that. Because

00:38:28.080 people really respect it when you say all caps. And that will give great credibility to your opinion.

00:38:33.360 But please, go try again. Say the opposite of what he's saying next time. The opposite.

00:38:39.880 That's how I imagine his performance review goes. Anyway, if you knew that you were giving away his

00:38:51.040 fortune, and that's confirmed, do you believe that Soros is in it to make money for himself?

00:38:58.160 Go. In the comments, knowing he's giving his money away, is he in it for the money?

00:39:03.740 Did I mention he's giving his money away? And then the question is, is he in it to make money?

00:39:13.980 No. No. And then I heard a comment that he gives his fortune away, in part, to reduce his tax burden.

00:39:23.800 No. No. No, you don't give money away to reduce your tax burden. That's not a thing. It's not a thing

00:39:34.460 with Soros. It's not a thing with you. It's not a thing with me. It's not a thing with anybody. And

00:39:40.820 it's never been a thing any time, at any place, in any dimension, in any part of the whole fucking 0.97

00:39:46.960 world. In no part of the world has anybody made a fucking penny because they gave money

00:39:53.120 away, like charitably. It's not a thing. You reduce your taxes because you gave your fucking

00:40:01.560 money away. You didn't make money. You didn't find a clever way to get in on the free money

00:40:10.640 racket by giving your money away. So can we at least agree to give up on Soros is trying

00:40:17.460 to make money by giving his money away? He's not. Whatever he's doing, it's definitely not

00:40:26.160 fucking that. All right? Now, we're not saying he's a good guy. I'm not defending him. I'm just

00:40:32.840 saying you can't fucking make money by giving all your money away. You don't have to have

00:40:40.520 a degree in economics to get that. If you can find a way for me to make money by giving

00:40:47.600 my money away, please send me that link because I'm going to be all over that fucking shit. 0.96

00:40:54.140 I'm going to be, like, giving my money away so fast. Wow, this is great. Nobody ever told

00:40:58.440 me I could make money by giving my money away to poor people. Look at me making money.

00:41:02.400 Whoa! Whoa! So let's abandon the economic argument. Let's say that he just wants to do

00:41:11.420 it because he has a... Would you buy that whatever reason he's doing it for is for his sense of

00:41:21.600 what is right and wrong? Could he give me that? Could we all agree that whatever he's doing is

00:41:31.600 his own personal sense of what's right and wrong? Because I think he says that, right? I mean, he

00:41:36.620 says that directly. He writes it. It's exactly what he says. And that seems pretty reasonably. Yeah,

00:41:44.080 posterity. Might have to do with his ego, right? Could we all get on the same page that it has

00:41:51.060 something to do with ego, posterity, maybe even guilt? Maybe even guilt because of the way he made

00:41:59.560 his money, right? Could be just guilt. Maybe he wants to revive his family name for the benefit of his

00:42:07.080 children. But do we agree that in his personal opinion, which might be wrong, could well be

00:42:16.220 wrong, but would we agree that in his personal opinion he's trying to do something good for the

00:42:20.820 world? Would you give me that or no? It's a hard question, isn't it? I'm not saying he is doing

00:42:31.060 something good for the world. I'm saying that by process of elimination, since there's no economic

00:42:36.480 benefit that anybody could, you know, reasonably imagine. Well, you say influence. But remember,

00:42:45.300 he's like a hundred years old and he's going to be dead. Do you think that he cares about his

00:42:50.180 personal influence that's going to be like a few years left and then dead? I mean, I think he's doing

00:42:56.420 it for after he's gone, right? Don't you think his incentive is more about after he's gone at this

00:43:03.540 point? Because he's like a hundred. So then the question is, how does he describe what it is he's

00:43:12.260 trying to do? Now, if you look at his website, it all looks like awesome things to help poor people,

00:43:18.120 right? So, but I mean, that's his description of it. That doesn't mean that's what's really

00:43:21.880 happening. And how do you, how do you eliminate this explanation? So one explanation is that he's

00:43:31.320 evil and he wants to control things. And I get that. And I'm not, I'm not eliminating that.

00:43:37.120 So if you're a Soros hater, I will, I will give you this. I don't, I don't know how to eliminate

00:43:45.560 the possibility that it's all evil. How, how would you ever do that? I mean, I can't read his mind.

00:43:52.240 We can only look at what he does, right? That's all we know. So I can't eliminate that. But would you

00:43:57.760 agree that another explanation could be this? That he gives his money to a lot of organizations

00:44:06.360 that don't do exactly everything he would want them to do? Because that is sort of a problem

00:44:14.020 with giving away a lot of money. If you give away, let's say, a lot of money to one organization,

00:44:19.880 you can pretty much control what they do. But if you're giving away a lot of money through a lot

00:44:24.520 of organizations and you're not controlling everything they do, aren't some of them going

00:44:29.340 to be doing more than you want? Now, did you know that Soros is against the progressives?

00:44:34.400 I just, I just read it in his own words. That he considers himself very far from the AOCs and the

00:44:42.020 Bernies. Like, he doesn't like them at all. He's a centrist. More of a centrist liberal by his own 0.92

00:44:51.480 description. Now, you're saying, you're laughing? I'm saying what he says. He actually complains about

00:44:59.240 them going too far into the impractical. So, what the hell does he want? It looks like he's giving

00:45:07.640 his money away because he wants to help poor people for whatever reasons, you know. I mean,

00:45:13.820 good ones probably. But also good ones for his reputation, his legacy, his ego, you know. As long

00:45:19.940 as those are all compatible with, here's another one. One of my critics, Old Fool Adams and Caps.

00:45:31.340 Does anybody have a, just throw in, for those of the NPCs, I know a lot of NPCs are going to be

00:45:39.360 coming here. Good comments for the NPCs would be Soylent Green, 1984, Holocaust. And any of those

00:45:52.620 comments will be perfectly acceptable from the Great Reset. I don't know that, I haven't seen Soros

00:45:59.480 connected with that. Now, my understanding of the open borders is that he would like people to easily

00:46:07.240 be able to cross borders for economic reasons. Am I wrong about that? Now, you're probably saying

00:46:14.660 that he wants to do that to take down governments. But when he says take down governments, do you know

00:46:20.620 what he means in his own words? Because he does say he wants to take down governments. You knew that,

00:46:27.280 right? But do you know what he means by that, by taking down the government? He means giving the

00:46:35.860 people more power. Like, he means giving the citizens more power over the government instead

00:46:41.980 of the other way around. Did you know that? Did you know that that's what he means when he says just

00:46:48.540 basically taking power from the governments and giving it to the people who live there?

00:46:54.860 No, I'm not mind reading. I'm saying that's what he says. And I'm not telling you it's true. If I told

00:47:02.520 you it's true, that would be mind reading. I'm just reporting what he says. That would be his own

00:47:08.140 description of what he's doing. And I'm reporting it as of, I just read it, like, just before I got on

00:47:13.280 here. Now, how many of you think that I'm defending Soros right now? Does anybody have that impression?

00:47:22.660 I say yes. Yes. Now, what does it mean to defend? Because are you reading my mind? Because why would

00:47:36.020 I defend somebody who was doing something evil? Well, did he get to me? Did he, did he bribe me or

00:47:42.760 something? Like, why would I do that? So here's, here's a way, here's another, when I see the

00:47:49.160 cognitive dissonance tells, I'm going to call him out here. In all capitals, Andrew Richards says,

00:47:55.800 you are just lost. The you and the lost are in caps. Now, that's just pure cognitive dissonance.

00:48:01.880 Do you recognize him yet? This is the kind of comment you get, especially the caps, when somebody's

00:48:09.660 finding that their belief system is getting challenged. Now, I'm not even telling you you're

00:48:16.120 wrong. Have I? Have I at any point said that Soros is not evil? Because I don't know. How

00:48:24.780 would I know? I've heard a lot of things about him, and I can't find good information one way

00:48:30.120 or the other. But I'm telling you that if you haven't considered all the possible explanations

00:48:36.320 of what you see, you could be blindsided. Let me ask you this. How many people have a background in

00:48:43.780 economics and are also famous, but disagree with me about Soros? Well, I'm not even sure I have an

00:48:52.600 opinion on Soros. I guess my opinion is I don't, I don't have an opinion, but I can't rule out the

00:48:57.880 possibilities. Yes, me. So here's the way to look at any differences we have, okay? So I would assert

00:49:09.840 that anybody who has a degree in economics and is also famous would have an opinion about Soros

00:49:17.920 that's close to mine if they just sort of spend five minutes looking into what he does.

00:49:24.040 Now, does that mean I'm right? No, the tough part is finding out which filter is the right

00:49:29.520 one. Because you know what has been the most accurate filter on reality in the last several

00:49:38.780 years? Let me see if you can get this. What has been the most accurate filter on reality

00:49:45.680 or frame, if you will? What's the best frame? Not the simulation. I mean, technically that

00:49:52.880 is the right answer, but I'm going for something different here. The most accurate predictive

00:49:59.080 frame is that everybody's lying to you. And all the data is wrong and the experts are wrong.

00:50:09.320 Now, I don't know. I just gave you all my logic for why, you know, economics, blah, blah,

00:50:16.580 on Gell-Mann theory, blah, blah, blah. But how well does all of my smartitude predict compared

00:50:24.600 to, I don't know, I think everybody's lying. They're both pretty good. But I don't know

00:50:33.080 if I've beat the average of just assume everybody's lying. And if there's money involved, you know,

00:50:40.720 doubly assume they're lying. Am I wrong? See, that's the problem with the world today, is

00:50:46.700 that if you just assumed everybody's lying all the time, you're going to be right at least

00:50:51.260 80% of the time. And the 20% you think you're wrong, you were really right, but you didn't

00:50:56.400 learn that they were lying to you. So, Scott's been lying to his audience, he says.

00:51:03.860 Here's what the right lane bandit says in all caps. So, if you want to see some more cognitive

00:51:10.080 dissonance, here it goes. You are ignorant to what Suarez has done to countries, currencies,

00:51:16.060 get educated. Did you miss the part about my degree in economics? Did you miss the part about

00:51:23.720 having an MBA? No, I'm quite familiar with the currency manipulation. That's all factored

00:51:31.320 into my opinion. So, now that you know that I understand the currency manipulation, and

00:51:37.400 betting you don't have a degree in economics, guessing that I know more about it than you.

00:51:42.780 So, now that you know, my dear troll, that I know more about the topic than you do, does

00:51:49.500 that change your opinion, of my opinion? So, here's another troll, I think. He's quoting

00:52:02.960 me and he says, if I couldn't smoke weed, I would have killed myself. Scott Adams, self-help

00:52:09.260 genius. Well, no, that's a true statement. I probably would have. But that doesn't mean

00:52:14.920 you should smoke weed. I definitely don't recommend that. All right. Let's not lose

00:52:25.620 time with the trolls. The trolls are interesting because they teach you cognitive dissonance,

00:52:31.040 which actually turns out to be my next thing. So, when I started realizing that people were

00:52:39.300 not disagreeing with me and were not critics, but rather they were suffering from binary

00:52:43.300 syndrome. You know, binary syndrome means you think there are only two opinions, and if

00:52:47.680 somebody doesn't fit into one of them, then you just assume they do. And then they get mad

00:52:53.140 at their hallucination that somebody fits into one of the binaries. So, here's the power of

00:53:00.380 reframing. And this is why I'm, you know, thinking about writing a book on this topic.

00:53:05.100 Reframing isn't about going from what's untrue to what's true. It's about two frames that can both

00:53:12.240 explain the world, but one of them has more utility. That's all. It doesn't mean it's true.

00:53:18.740 And here's one that has more utility. Instead of thinking of my critics as people who are mad at me

00:53:24.560 or disagree with me, when I reframe them as people suffering from binary syndrome, the inability to see

00:53:31.780 anything but two sides, all of my, any stress about being criticized goes away.

00:53:39.420 Because when you see them as mentally disabled, which I believe they are temporarily, you don't

00:53:46.960 have the same, like, feeling about their attack. So, if somebody, let's say, is, like, if you went

00:53:52.420 into a crazy place where somebody was, like, actually mentally disabled and they threw some mashed 0.96

00:53:57.540 potatoes at you. You know, you got head in the head with some mashed potatoes. Now, if you knew it

00:54:03.080 was somebody who couldn't control their mental process, you'd be like, ah, oh, okay. Like, you'd get

00:54:09.520 over it right away. But if you thought somebody who could control it, then it'd be a whole different

00:54:14.140 thing. So, the way you think of things completely changes how your body feels. So, I would recommend

00:54:21.420 this. When you see people disagreeing with you, you can still respond, you know, the way you were

00:54:26.260 going to respond. You could act the same. But just internalize it as people with binary syndrome,

00:54:31.880 if that's what's happening, if it's the two-option problem. And I saw another reframe today that I

00:54:41.620 reframed somebody's reframe. So, somebody was mocking me for getting vaccinated and used the

00:54:47.260 hashtag referring to themselves as purebred. Have you seen that? The unvaccinated are considering 1.00

00:54:54.140 themselves, you know, pure humans, whereas the vaccinated would be, I guess by their telling,

00:55:00.860 you know, part human and part engineered vaccine or something. So, he's trying to dunk on me with this

00:55:08.880 hashtag purebred, which is an interesting take. Because here's somebody who's worried about an

00:55:18.320 engineered vaccine, but not worried about a potentially engineered bioweapon. He's not

00:55:25.020 worried about the virus itself. And I thought to myself, can you call yourself a purebred if part

00:55:33.340 of your body is a Chinese-engineered, allegedly, allegedly Chinese-engineered virus? I would say 0.99

00:55:41.860 that makes you an android. Or not an android, but a, what is it when you're half human and half machine?

00:55:52.160 What's that word? You know, that word. So, I think we need a new kind of science. Our regular science

00:56:03.260 science has not worked. And I would like to push for science A and science B. Science A would be the

00:56:09.900 science that, you know, let's say science classic, where you, a cyborg, thank you. Yeah, if you get,

00:56:17.080 if you get COVID, and it turns out it's a Chinese-engineered virus, and any of it stays with you, 0.97

00:56:26.440 you're a cyborg. I'm sorry. So, let's have science A and science B. Science A would be the, you know,

00:56:33.500 the randomized controlled trials, the scientific process as you know it, and as it's taught in

00:56:38.720 school. So, science A would be science classic, but as we can see, it's not helping us as much as it

00:56:44.180 should. So, we need a new science, and I would call it an anecdote-based science. So, instead of doing

00:56:50.520 all the controlled trials, it would be a whole new branch of science, which was based entirely on

00:56:57.500 anecdotes. So, you would make your decision on vaccines based on one thing you heard about.

00:57:04.940 Or you heard about some athletes dying. Instead of doing a study, you would just say,

00:57:11.200 athletes dying, boom, vaccine's wrong. Now, a lot of you are thinking to yourself,

00:57:17.220 oh, Scott, get out of us with your The Onion sarcasm parody. I'm not so sure it's a parody,

00:57:27.820 because in order for this to be a parody, wouldn't I have to know that the anecdote-based science got

00:57:33.620 the wrong answers? See where I'm going? Look at the last year or two. Did the anecdote people

00:57:43.060 get it right more often than the science people? I don't know. I don't know. I really don't know.

00:57:52.620 And the science people are lying to us so thoroughly that if science says A is true,

00:58:01.060 but you're looking at your neighbor dying, and you're like, I don't know that that's safe. My

00:58:05.520 neighbor just got killed by it. Is that anecdote less valuable than the absolute unadulterated

00:58:13.240 bullshit that is being sold to us as real science? I don't know. If you asked me six months ago, I would

00:58:22.140 say, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, get away from me with your anecdotes. I believe in real science.

00:58:30.040 Real science. Scientific process. Peer review. Randomized controlled trials. People. Anything

00:58:38.380 less than that, I will not accept. And then you find out that the randomized controlled trials

00:58:44.400 are just for the short term. And maybe the numbers are all fake. Or not. You don't really know.

00:58:54.520 But you do know your neighbor just died in his driveway. You know that. And you know he died

00:59:02.000 in his driveway a week after getting vaccinated. Now, you do tell yourself, well, okay, somebody's

00:59:09.140 going to die anyway. And a lot of people are getting vaccinated. So I do get that it could

00:59:15.020 be a coincidence. And that people do die after getting vaccinated. Just by coincidence. But is

00:59:23.840 your neighbor dying in the driveway after a week after getting vaccinated less reliable

00:59:29.740 in the year 2022 than what the experts tell you is the data? I don't know. I don't know.

00:59:42.560 Have I told you before that one of my bullshit filters is when the science and the observation,

00:59:49.200 just your human observation, disagree? So it's good when they agree. Kind of bad when they don't.

00:59:56.400 I always use the example of cigarette smoking. Science says that smoking cigarettes will give

01:00:01.640 you lung cancer. Sure enough, the people I know who got lung cancer, nine out of ten were cigarette

01:00:08.920 smokers. The feds. Observation. Science. Same. But is that exactly what's happening here with the

01:00:17.180 pandemic? I don't know. I feel like with the pandemic, observation and science are kind of

01:00:25.500 all over the place. And partly because the science is changing. At the same time, our observations are

01:00:31.420 changing. At the same time, the very situation itself is changing. So the science, the situation,

01:00:36.560 and all the anecdotes are all changing at the same time. So what good is the science in that context?

01:00:43.520 Well, I don't know. Science A and science B are looking a lot closer than they used to.

01:00:53.040 Scott, should asymmetrical censorship affect vaccine decisions? Well, the trouble with editing is you

01:01:04.740 really do have to make a decision about what's true and what would hurt. And there's no way to do it

01:01:10.660 right. So unfortunately, it's the unsolvable problem. As long as you have human beings deciding

01:01:16.280 who sees what in any way whatsoever, you're never going to get it right. So I think that's about all

01:01:29.000 I want to talk about today. You may have noticed that my follower count is dropping like a rock.

01:01:36.100 Do you think that will change my behavior? Probably not. Now, one of the things about this,

01:01:44.320 this whatever it is, because I think we've genuinely developed a brand new model

01:01:50.620 that's quite different than any other podcast I've seen. And that model is that we, at least when we're

01:01:58.160 on here at the same time, we're creating something like a meta brain. That's the combination of all

01:02:05.340 our brains, you know, with all the crazy stuff, plus all the good stuff. And that I feel as though

01:02:12.340 this is almost like a new form of life or a new form of intelligence. It's like a collective

01:02:20.320 intelligence. Because it's here every day. It's dependable, right? You know, it happens on a regular

01:02:26.240 basis. It's not just a one and done. And it's getting stronger, I would say. I would say that

01:02:33.560 as people are coming in and dropping out and, you know, being acquainted with different thinking

01:02:38.600 styles, that people are getting smarter. And that this collective brain we're forming here is

01:02:46.060 getting stronger. And to me, that's kind of amazing. I mean, deeply amazing. And I don't know how far

01:02:53.520 we can take it. But if you think that the game here is for me to get the largest

01:02:58.840 follower count, would you agree that I would be acting differently if that were my goal?

01:03:06.480 You can see that, right? Like, can you all see that? You know, you can tell from the production

01:03:12.280 quality to the topics, to the way I challenge my base, or let's say, that's not my base, but the way

01:03:21.760 I challenge the people who are my regular viewers. You can tell I'm not trying to just make you happy.

01:03:29.340 Like, I'm trying to entertain you, of course, because that's part of the process. But, yeah.

01:03:35.640 Yeah. News stream says, we see you've changed. So, now, I think my take on that, the people who says

01:03:45.360 you've changed, usually they mean my opinion on something. Is that what you mean? Say more about

01:03:50.840 that. How many people think that I've changed? And what does that mean? Do you mean my opinions

01:03:58.320 have changed? Or do you mean that, oh, you are more defensive? Well, would you like a reason for

01:04:09.460 that? So, have I told you before that if I have a bad day, I like to batch up all of the unpleasant

01:04:18.180 things I like to do at the same time? I've told you that strategy before, right? Like, if you need to

01:04:23.760 fire somebody, and you're like, ah, it's going to ruin my day, too. I don't want to fire, but I have

01:04:29.160 to fire somebody. That if you're having a bad day anyway, and there's nothing you can do about it,

01:04:34.320 it's just going to be a bad day, well, use that day to fire somebody. Because the day's already ruined.

01:04:40.900 You're just intelligently combining things. Likewise, if you have a real stressful day at work,

01:04:47.160 that's a real good day to exercise. Because it'll really give you that extra push.

01:04:52.300 So, sometimes when you see me acting, I would say aggressive, not defensive. The stuff you see

01:05:00.540 as defensive is trying to correct the record. Because the trolls, if there are enough trolls,

01:05:05.280 they create the record of who I am. And if the trolls create, let's say, a dominant record

01:05:11.440 that is bigger than my own brand, then they can take me out of the game.

01:05:16.000 So, if you want me to be taken out of the game, then I should not respond to the trolls. Because

01:05:23.020 then they would define me. And anybody who Googled me would get them first. They'd say, oh, he's the

01:05:28.280 guy who believes this crazy stuff. So, part of the show is to show you what's wrong with their thinking,

01:05:34.280 and also to attack them. Because I like to do it at least humorously when I can. If you haven't seen me

01:05:40.980 go after the trolls, I'd do it as entertainment for you, as well as working things out for me.

01:05:47.420 But here's the extra level, the part that is less obvious. Do you remember when I was taking

01:05:54.260 prednisone, and I told you it was making me super aggressive? Many of you remember that. And I could

01:06:01.520 tell, too. Like, it was really noticeable that my aggressiveness was just through the roof.

01:06:07.240 Now, I'm not on prednisone now. So, I'm not on any kind of pharmaceutical or anything that would

01:06:14.580 make me more aggressive. But sometimes, things in your personal life are not going swimmingly right.

01:06:23.180 And sometimes, you need to get out a little aggression. And so, I've, you know, increased my

01:06:30.120 workouts, which is working out really well. And then when my trolls come after me, instead of saying,

01:06:36.500 ugh, I'm going to have to fix this again. Another troll saying I believe something I don't believe.

01:06:43.140 And I'm like, I'll correct it. But instead of doing that, I'm like, well, fuck you. I think I'm going to

01:06:49.040 have some fun with this troll. So, yeah. So, sometimes you're just seeing me working out my aggression

01:06:55.760 on the trolls. And you shouldn't take it too seriously.

01:07:06.520 Is binary syndrome a new filter? Yeah, you can think of it that way. 0.90

01:07:10.160 The binary syndrome works the same the way Trump derangement syndrome worked. 0.57

01:07:14.920 It's a way to explain what you're seeing that's hard to explain otherwise, without assuming

01:07:21.420 you're the one who's wrong. So, if you want to remove from the option set that you're the

01:07:26.420 one who's crazy, Trump derange syndrome did that. It's like, oh, I get it. It's the other

01:07:31.020 person who's crazy. Yeah, I don't have any unsolvable problems, in case you're wondering.

01:07:43.360 Did you hear what you thought about Soros funding of Marxist DA campaigns? Oh, that's a very

01:07:58.840 good question. So, somebody said, what do I think about the Marxist funding of DA campaigns?

01:08:05.700 So, in America, a lot of our district attorneys got into office with some Soros funding, which,

01:08:11.580 by the way, I don't know how that works. Is he American? Can somebody tell me a Soros?

01:08:18.000 He's not American, is he? How does foreign money come into our elections? Yeah. Well, I mean, 0.96

01:08:29.980 I know he was born Hungarian, but he doesn't have an American citizenship, right? So, it's hard for

01:08:36.680 me to understand how that's even legal, that money outside of the United States is influencing

01:08:41.500 our elections. I don't get that part. There's something I don't understand about how we allow

01:08:46.640 that. I mean, I get that it's going through other entities, so I understand the flow, but I don't know

01:08:53.500 why we allow that. Why is that legal? Anyway, so the question was, how do I explain funding the

01:09:01.420 progressive DA prosecutors who are letting everybody out of jail for fairly serious stuff? And that goes

01:09:09.440 back to my original calculation that he doesn't know exactly what he's getting for his money.

01:09:16.320 In other words, he may be throwing his money at people who lean left without knowing exactly what

01:09:21.880 that's getting him, because he thinks that might be like a little closer than the extreme right.

01:09:28.580 So, I would love to hear in his own words if he thinks he's getting what he bought. I'm going to make

01:09:34.220 a prediction that you will never hear Soros say that the crime rate, which does have something

01:09:41.620 a lot to do with how many people are being prosecuted. I don't think he's going to support

01:09:46.380 it. Like, if you asked him that directly, well, what do you think about this? I think he's going to

01:09:50.920 say something more along the lines of, I wanted to elect people who weren't putting people in jail

01:09:55.560 for weed. Like, I feel like that's what he was going for. You know, like, maybe fewer drug-related

01:10:02.640 prosecutions, and then he got people who were too extreme. Maybe. But this is what I say. You know,

01:10:10.900 and to my critic, who was agreeing with me, remember, I'm coming at this from a point of extreme

01:10:17.400 ignorance, and that's the point. Why can't I figure this out? If it's such a big deal,

01:10:25.320 it shouldn't be that hard to figure out what he's up to and what the problem is. Anyway, I'm not

01:10:31.820 supporting George Soros. As always, I'm non-binary on this. I just want to understand it. If there's

01:10:39.740 some reason to hate him, I'm all in. Hey, if you have a good reason to hate him, and I'm completely

01:10:45.960 open to the fact that there might be, I mean, I hate him just for putting money into American

01:10:51.080 politics. So that's it. All right. That is what I have for today. If the news gets more interesting,

01:11:01.140 so will I. But until the news does, I'm a little bit bound by that. And I will talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 16, 2022

Episode 1624 Scott Adams： Does This Work？

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript