Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1646 Scott Adams： Fake News, Fake Statistics, Fake Data, and Real Delicious Coffee. Come and Get Some

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the best darn thing that ever happened to you.

00:00:05.820 And I don't know how life could get any better, but it just happened.

00:00:11.220 You happen to be watching Coffee with Scott Adams.

00:00:14.980 Think of all the poor people around the world, not necessarily monetarily poor,

00:00:21.920 but spiritually and philosophically poor, entertainment deprived.

00:00:27.040 Those are the people who are not here with us today, and if I may say so,

00:00:33.620 and I don't like to speak ill of other people, especially when they're not in the room,

00:00:38.700 but the people who are not watching this, they're not as smart and not as sexy as you are.

00:00:46.040 I'm just saying. I don't have science to back that up.

00:00:50.140 But anecdotally, every one of you looks smarter and better looking

00:00:54.300 than every other person who isn't watching.

00:00:56.640 And I don't think that's a coincidence.

00:00:58.900 Well, we'll talk about statistics and things that are just as exciting as that,

00:01:03.500 but after, a thing called the simultaneous sip.

00:01:08.300 I don't know what that was.

00:01:10.380 And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a gel,

00:01:13.600 a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.

00:01:18.540 Fill it with your favorite liquid.

00:01:19.540 I like coffee.

00:01:21.920 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.

00:01:28.080 It's the dopamine of the day.

00:01:30.320 It's the thing that makes everything better.

00:01:31.740 It's called the simultaneous sip.

00:01:34.260 And do you know how hard it is to read your comments at the same time I'm talking?

00:01:38.780 Try it sometime.

00:01:39.900 It's not easy.

00:01:41.180 Go.

00:01:41.380 Ah, yeah.

00:01:48.240 I didn't think it could get more satisfying.

00:01:50.900 But then it did.

00:01:52.480 It did.

00:01:54.280 All right.

00:01:54.860 If anybody's new to this live stream,

00:01:59.020 the connect the dots that's happening on my head is just a dermatology thing.

00:02:04.480 I did not get beaten up.

00:02:07.020 I deserve it.

00:02:09.020 I think we could all agree on that.

00:02:10.860 If anybody ever deserved to get beaten up, it's probably me.

00:02:15.700 According to at least a third of my, a third of the people who follow me on Twitter.

00:02:21.840 All right.

00:02:23.540 Oh, damn it.

00:02:27.360 Technical difficulty of the worst possible kind.

00:02:31.880 Looks like my notes didn't print out.

00:02:33.920 But I, unlike other people, have a backup plan.

00:02:39.020 It goes like this.

00:02:42.220 Here we go.

00:02:43.720 So let's start with CNN's fake news.

00:02:47.920 How many of you have noticed that I can do a segment just about every day of the week

00:02:53.720 that begins with, let me tell you about the fake news on CNN?

00:02:57.260 And I think most of you would agree that when I explain why I say it's fake news,

00:03:02.940 it really is.

00:03:06.000 Now, what are the odds that you could just do that every day?

00:03:10.900 Well, so there's a new video that was released by, I guess, the January 6th committee.

00:03:18.100 And it shows some of the Capitol rioters, as they call them in CNN, making what they call

00:03:26.500 graphic threats against former Vice President Mike Pence and other lawmakers.

00:03:30.180 And then they showed the clip.

00:03:32.060 Now, keep in mind, this is a compilation.

00:03:36.280 So it shows rioters, plural, making graphic threats.

00:03:43.460 So I'm thinking, wow, how many of them were there?

00:03:48.420 This could be pretty bad.

00:03:50.220 And then I did something that not everybody's going to do.

00:03:53.460 I actually clicked on the video to see these people saying the terrible things.

00:03:58.840 There were two of them.

00:04:00.340 But really one, really just one.

00:04:06.420 And then the person who made a joke about it and laughed.

00:04:10.940 So it was more like, it was less like a compilation of people making graphic threats than it was

00:04:17.940 about one guy taking a selfie and saying some hyperbolic things about, you know, what they

00:04:23.780 would do with the wrong side.

00:04:26.320 The guy behind him laughs and says, yeah, off with their head, ha, ha, ha, clearly joking.

00:04:33.720 Now, these people were together.

00:04:36.300 They weren't just like, you know, coincidentally in the same place.

00:04:39.380 It looked like they were part of the same little group.

00:04:42.020 His friend literally laughed about, yeah, off with their heads.

00:04:46.640 Now, let me ask you this.

00:04:49.060 In a group of people that would say whatever number you want to put on it,

00:04:53.300 98% just patriots?

00:04:59.320 I'll just pick a number without any backing, but I'm guessing 98% of the people there were

00:05:05.240 literally just concerned about the quality of the election and were patriots.

00:05:10.080 Were the 98% going to let the 2% drag Mike Pence into the courtyard and behead him or hang him

00:05:19.920 or something? Like, to imagine that this specific crowd of people, literally the most patriotic,

00:05:27.460 were going to hang Mike Pence, who had been like the loyal number two.

00:05:31.740 He just had like a technical, legal, constitutional disagreement about what his powers were,

00:05:38.320 that 98% of the MAGA people were just going to hang him.

00:05:41.000 Now, I don't want to minimize the fact that there were probably bad characters in the crowd,

00:05:49.020 but aren't there bad characters in every crowd this size?

00:05:53.540 I mean, how could you put this many Americans in any place and not have a murderer, a pedophile,

00:05:59.860 you know, some dirty trickster, an FBI agent?

00:06:03.740 If you took 100 Americans randomly selected and just put them anywhere to protest about anything,

00:06:11.680 how many of them would just be so disreputable they were only there to loot

00:06:16.160 or they came there for the violence?

00:06:19.400 It would be every crowd of American people would have a few.

00:06:23.720 So this is the diversity we celebrate, which I actually do.

00:06:29.560 In a weird way, I love the fact that there's every kind of person.

00:06:33.740 Yeah, I don't think you'd want it in a different way.

00:06:36.840 Because if you thought about it, like imagine everybody was sort of the same,

00:06:41.400 it would get old fast.

00:06:43.760 I mean, life would be very uninteresting unless everybody was just all over the place,

00:06:48.360 which is the way it is.

00:06:50.380 Unfortunately, some of them are doing illegal things.

00:06:53.060 Now, here's the weirdest, most ironic thing.

00:06:57.180 Apparently, there's some evidence, I don't know how solid this is,

00:07:00.960 it might be more anecdotal, that the defund the police movement is causing higher gun ownership

00:07:07.800 because people are realizing, and also more vigilantism,

00:07:13.060 but higher gun ownership because people realize they have to arm themselves

00:07:16.680 in the most dangerous places.

00:07:18.700 So if you're in the most dangerous place, and you know that the police have been defunded,

00:07:23.920 you're going to go get yourself a gun.

00:07:26.480 Now, what's interesting about this is that

00:07:29.600 defunding the police is sort of a small government move, isn't it?

00:07:35.640 Did you ever think about that?

00:07:38.880 That, you know, not if they're going to use the money for some other stuff,

00:07:43.220 then it's the same size government.

00:07:44.540 But if the only thing they're saying, because mostly they don't have an alternative, right?

00:07:50.300 Even the people who say defund are not saying, I know the alternative.

00:07:55.000 It's more like, let's experiment, or there must be one.

00:07:58.940 But I would say defund the government is a small government thing,

00:08:02.640 and doing something that actively encourages greater firearm ownership of private citizens,

00:08:09.160 it's kind of Republican.

00:08:11.960 It's kind of Republican.

00:08:12.900 And I was thinking, what could you do if you were a Republican candidate,

00:08:17.740 and you just wanted an interesting, persuasive messaging, right?

00:08:23.560 So forget about what's logical or true.

00:08:26.240 What would be just a good, persuasive messaging thing if you're a Republican?

00:08:31.580 Well, I tweeted an example.

00:08:34.720 And I think we'll see how that tweet's doing a little later.

00:08:37.840 And I said, a big difference between Democrats and Republicans

00:08:40.680 is that Republicans only want you to own firearms if you choose to do so,

00:08:46.420 whereas Democrats are making it a necessity.

00:08:50.840 Republicans don't want that many guns in the hands of the public.

00:08:53.780 Now, I'm not lying.

00:08:58.340 Republicans actually are the ones who would want fewer guns in the hands of the public

00:09:02.400 in this specific case.

00:09:05.500 Because this is a case of basically people getting illegal firearms,

00:09:10.520 in many cases.

00:09:12.240 At least that's what we're talking about here.

00:09:14.200 So in the most dangerous neighborhoods,

00:09:15.740 there's probably a whole bunch of illegal firearms people are buying,

00:09:18.500 and for the wrong reasons, to go be vigilantes.

00:09:24.220 So, I don't know.

00:09:26.480 I think you could have fun with this if you were a Republican candidate.

00:09:31.280 And just act like, you know,

00:09:34.340 that you and the Democrats are competing on guns,

00:09:38.260 but the Republicans only want you to have one if you want it.

00:09:42.280 The Democrats are making it a necessity.

00:09:45.060 Let's just shorten it to that.

00:09:48.180 That's your whole message.

00:09:50.060 I'm a Republican.

00:09:51.440 I'm running for whatever office in some high-crime area.

00:09:55.640 I'm a Republican.

00:09:57.200 We want people to be able to own a firearm if they want one.

00:10:01.940 Our Democrats are making it a necessity

00:10:04.140 because they want to defund the police.

00:10:07.720 Don't make it a necessity.

00:10:09.800 Make it an option.

00:10:11.280 We live in the land of freedom.

00:10:13.200 I don't want you to be safe enough

00:10:14.480 that you don't have to get a gun,

00:10:16.940 but if you want one,

00:10:17.940 I'm going to make sure you have that right.

00:10:21.520 It'd be hard to lose, wouldn't it?

00:10:24.700 It'd be pretty hard to lose.

00:10:26.060 It just completely guts the other argument.

00:10:29.400 But you'd have to depend on this somewhat anecdotal stuff

00:10:33.140 about people arming themselves and becoming vigilantes

00:10:35.760 because of defund the police.

00:10:39.180 Here is an interesting story

00:10:41.120 of which the interesting part is not the story.

00:10:46.040 So Chris Wallace famously left Fox News to go to CNN.

00:10:52.160 And he got reportedly $8 to $10 million a year compensation to do that.

00:10:58.860 But I don't think he's put anything on the air yet.

00:11:00.900 And there are reports or rumors

00:11:03.220 that he's not getting a producer

00:11:05.480 and they're not giving him support.

00:11:06.940 But at the same time, he went over there

00:11:08.960 because of Jeff Zucker,

00:11:11.920 who now is retiring.

00:11:13.280 Well, retiring.

00:11:14.520 He's resigning

00:11:15.440 because of his relationship with an employee

00:11:19.860 that he did not disclose.

00:11:21.520 At least, allegedly, that's his reason.

00:11:23.220 And so the story is more like a schadenfreude sort of a story

00:11:30.940 because people who were mad at Chris Wallace,

00:11:34.380 they want to be happy that he left Fox

00:11:36.900 because they don't like him

00:11:37.940 and then he went to someplace worse.

00:11:39.700 So, you know, blah, blah.

00:11:41.520 We're happy that Chris Wallace is unhappy, I guess.

00:11:45.120 For some people, they would feel it.

00:11:46.680 Now, I never had a particular feeling,

00:11:49.020 one way or the other,

00:11:49.940 about Chris Wallace's politics or his performance.

00:11:55.500 But I'm reading this story

00:11:57.760 and, you know, I'm looking for the hook.

00:12:00.000 You know, what's the interesting part?

00:12:01.180 And then there's this throwaway line

00:12:03.600 that, you know, wasn't essential to the story,

00:12:06.160 but, you know, it's good context.

00:12:08.320 That he's 75 years old.

00:12:11.700 What?

00:12:13.760 Suddenly, this story went from,

00:12:15.740 oh, mildly interesting, you know,

00:12:17.080 somebody changed jobs and didn't like it, maybe.

00:12:19.780 And, you know, maybe not

00:12:20.800 because we don't really know what he's thinking.

00:12:22.780 But then I'm like, he's 75 years old.

00:12:26.100 Are you kidding me?

00:12:28.400 Did you have any idea he was 75?

00:12:31.300 I would have guessed 55.

00:12:34.320 I would have guessed 55.

00:12:38.000 And he does not show it.

00:12:40.620 Man.

00:12:42.040 You know, and his father lived forever too, right?

00:12:44.820 So it looks like he has good genes.

00:12:46.120 But, you know, this was like this

00:12:48.380 slightly, mildly interesting story

00:12:51.580 that as soon as I hit that,

00:12:53.220 like, what the hell is happening to the world?

00:12:56.180 And here's the thing.

00:12:57.540 At 75, he went and got a better job.

00:13:03.780 Because the money still mattered.

00:13:05.340 He figures he'll probably be around

00:13:06.560 for another, you know, 30 years.

00:13:10.160 Maybe.

00:13:10.560 So, what does that say about either a good lifestyle?

00:13:15.940 I don't know if that's just good genes.

00:13:17.740 But I imagine it's good lifestyle, right?

00:13:20.580 Because you look at him and his weight.

00:13:22.620 He looks like he exercises, doesn't he?

00:13:24.600 He looks like he exercises and he's right.

00:13:27.180 I don't know if that's true.

00:13:29.100 I mean, you know,

00:13:30.060 if we find out he's a chain smoker

00:13:31.960 and whatever, I'd be surprised.

00:13:34.900 But isn't that impressive?

00:13:38.840 Damn.

00:13:39.440 You know, I say the same thing about Joe Biden.

00:13:42.060 But Joe Biden's only a few years older

00:13:44.260 than Chris Wallace.

00:13:46.520 And Chris Wallace looks like

00:13:48.600 he could be Joe Biden's son.

00:13:52.240 I don't know.

00:13:53.060 I was just blown away by

00:13:54.100 what people can do

00:13:55.780 if they're really trying, health-wise.

00:13:57.360 All right.

00:14:00.000 One of the most interesting things

00:14:01.820 in the world and in the news,

00:14:03.180 to me anyway,

00:14:04.460 is when statistics and common sense

00:14:07.340 don't match.

00:14:09.300 So the reason that people

00:14:10.680 use statistics

00:14:12.520 is because if you could just look at stuff

00:14:15.580 and say,

00:14:18.020 well, based on looking at this thing,

00:14:20.480 I'll determine this.

00:14:21.820 But it doesn't work.

00:14:22.820 And we know that for a million reasons.

00:14:24.940 So you need this whole discipline

00:14:26.620 called statistics.

00:14:29.500 And then there are all these blind spots

00:14:31.820 that people who do not study statistics

00:14:34.400 would not even know is a blind spot.

00:14:36.700 And I would argue it's one of the biggest problems

00:14:38.620 in the world.

00:14:40.480 Because you don't have to be an expert in statistics

00:14:43.240 to learn what kinds of situations

00:14:46.240 you shouldn't trust

00:14:47.400 and when statistics is, you know,

00:14:50.980 a good thing to use

00:14:52.300 and when it's not.

00:14:53.180 And I would think that the best class

00:14:55.480 that you could have

00:14:56.180 for a, let's say,

00:14:57.780 life strategies degree

00:14:59.420 would not be necessarily a class

00:15:02.180 to learn how to do statistics,

00:15:04.100 although that would be great for many people.

00:15:06.560 But for the mass of people

00:15:07.980 who don't need to be a statistician,

00:15:10.640 wouldn't you like to see a class

00:15:11.880 that is just about the blind spots?

00:15:15.960 You know, just like,

00:15:16.880 if you run into this situation,

00:15:18.320 I'll just give you an example.

00:15:19.220 If somebody's doing a meta-analysis,

00:15:22.300 I'm not going to teach you

00:15:23.640 how to do a meta-analysis.

00:15:25.820 I'll just explain what it is.

00:15:28.080 And they'll say,

00:15:28.900 this is why you can't trust it.

00:15:31.060 You know, this reason.

00:15:31.860 Because it's susceptible

00:15:33.560 to what you decide

00:15:34.920 is in the meta-analysis

00:15:36.060 and what isn't.

00:15:37.320 Right?

00:15:37.520 That ends up being what determines it.

00:15:39.960 So how interesting would it be

00:15:42.080 to be a class that was no more,

00:15:43.900 let's say, no more complex

00:15:45.340 than what I just told you?

00:15:46.360 That, oh, meta-analysis,

00:15:49.520 you can't trust it

00:15:50.260 because people will be selecting things.

00:15:52.920 And then secondarily,

00:15:54.360 there might be one study

00:15:55.460 that's the wrongest study,

00:15:57.060 but also the biggest.

00:15:59.040 And if it gets put in the average,

00:16:00.600 it's going to make everything wrong.

00:16:02.580 Right?

00:16:02.900 So I didn't use any complexity whatsoever,

00:16:06.340 but I taught you

00:16:07.280 how to recognize a blind spot.

00:16:09.240 That if somebody said,

00:16:10.160 here's this analysis

00:16:11.100 and you should trust it

00:16:12.200 because it's a meta-analysis,

00:16:14.760 you should at least be able to say,

00:16:16.040 well, maybe.

00:16:17.920 I mean, it doesn't mean it's wrong

00:16:19.080 because it's a meta-analysis.

00:16:20.900 But I would ask these two questions.

00:16:24.780 Now, beyond that,

00:16:26.640 I'm wondering if there's

00:16:27.500 an even deeper meaning

00:16:28.700 when our common sense

00:16:30.900 doesn't match statistics.

00:16:33.380 And it just makes me wonder

00:16:34.580 if that's another clue

00:16:35.820 that we're part of a simulation.

00:16:38.220 I'll just put it out there.

00:16:39.880 This would be one of my weaker,

00:16:41.620 you know, pieces of evidence.

00:16:43.640 But if you were building

00:16:45.680 a world with software,

00:16:48.160 I can imagine

00:16:49.340 there would be situations

00:16:50.260 where you didn't want

00:16:51.100 to have to explain everything

00:16:52.220 and you just wanted

00:16:53.760 to put it in the code.

00:16:54.920 All right, if this happens,

00:16:56.160 then this will always happen.

00:16:58.120 Why?

00:16:58.920 What is the rule of physics

00:17:00.680 that requires it?

00:17:01.680 I don't have time to write one,

00:17:04.220 so I'm not going to make it a rule.

00:17:06.120 It just happens.

00:17:07.340 So, in theory,

00:17:10.340 one would imagine

00:17:11.240 that a symbol,

00:17:12.300 a sign of being in the simulation

00:17:14.740 is that there should be some things

00:17:17.300 that your common sense says

00:17:18.580 that should not work statistically.

00:17:21.860 But then when you do the math,

00:17:23.220 it does.

00:17:25.220 So, I mean,

00:17:25.980 this is my weakest evidence

00:17:27.160 for the simulation,

00:17:28.080 but I'll throw it in there.

00:17:29.360 Let me give you some examples.

00:17:31.060 How many of you have heard of

00:17:32.660 the Monty Hall problem

00:17:36.680 in the statistics?

00:17:37.940 In the comments?

00:17:39.220 I'm just wondering,

00:17:40.720 because my audience

00:17:41.540 is unusually well-informed,

00:17:43.800 so just look at the answers yourself

00:17:45.260 to see where you stand.

00:17:46.560 Wow.

00:17:47.680 On locals,

00:17:48.600 it's almost all yeses.

00:17:52.800 And how about over here?

00:17:54.560 Oh, this is quite impressive.

00:17:58.000 Now, I told you

00:17:59.000 you were smarter and better looking

00:18:00.320 than all the people

00:18:01.180 who are not on this live stream

00:18:02.640 right now,

00:18:03.400 and you just proved it.

00:18:05.100 I don't know what percentage

00:18:06.360 of the general public

00:18:07.480 would know what

00:18:08.040 the Monty Hall problem is,

00:18:10.220 but I'm guessing

00:18:11.280 20%?

00:18:16.940 I'll bet no more than 20%

00:18:18.520 of the general public

00:18:19.280 has ever heard of it.

00:18:20.280 And for those of you

00:18:21.020 who haven't heard of it,

00:18:22.100 I'll tell you what it is

00:18:22.860 in a moment.

00:18:24.220 But, wow,

00:18:24.920 this is a really

00:18:26.180 interesting indicator

00:18:27.640 of the kind of people

00:18:29.120 watching this live stream.

00:18:30.820 If you know what

00:18:31.740 the Monty Hall problem is,

00:18:33.060 the odds of you

00:18:34.180 being a rational person

00:18:35.700 and really having

00:18:37.500 that preference

00:18:38.120 to be statistically

00:18:40.100 and scientifically sound,

00:18:42.740 that's probably

00:18:43.680 a pretty good indicator.

00:18:45.300 All right,

00:18:45.600 here's what the

00:18:46.000 Monty Hall problem is,

00:18:46.920 and I'm not going to do

00:18:47.680 the boring,

00:18:48.580 long explanation.

00:18:50.000 I'll just tell you

00:18:50.700 to Google it

00:18:52.020 if this interests you.

00:18:53.920 This is one of those cases

00:18:54.880 where your common sense

00:18:56.060 doesn't match

00:18:57.400 what the math

00:18:59.000 and the statistics

00:18:59.820 will tell you.

00:19:01.180 And, by the way,

00:19:01.960 this is something

00:19:02.560 of which even

00:19:03.480 the highest level thinkers

00:19:05.020 had long disagreed on

00:19:07.240 because even the smartest

00:19:09.480 people in math

00:19:10.480 and statistics

00:19:11.280 completely disagreed

00:19:13.480 until simulations

00:19:15.720 were run

00:19:16.320 and the simulation

00:19:17.360 always came out

00:19:17.960 the same way.

00:19:19.300 So, there's that.

00:19:22.360 All right,

00:19:22.640 this is what it is,

00:19:23.340 the Monty Hall problem.

00:19:24.840 This is just

00:19:25.540 from Wikipedia.

00:19:26.880 Suppose you're

00:19:27.380 on a game show

00:19:28.000 and you're given

00:19:28.600 the choice of three doors.

00:19:30.380 Behind one door

00:19:31.080 is a car.

00:19:32.320 Behind the others,

00:19:33.600 goats.

00:19:34.180 So, you've got

00:19:34.520 two goats

00:19:35.160 and one car

00:19:36.240 and all the doors

00:19:37.060 are closed.

00:19:37.640 You don't know

00:19:38.020 what is what.

00:19:39.480 You pick a door,

00:19:40.940 say number one,

00:19:42.120 and the host

00:19:42.960 who knows

00:19:44.020 what's behind the doors

00:19:45.360 opens another door,

00:19:47.600 say door number three.

00:19:49.380 Now, you still haven't

00:19:50.440 seen your door yet,

00:19:51.380 right?

00:19:51.560 You've picked a door,

00:19:52.760 but it hasn't opened.

00:19:54.140 So, now the host

00:19:55.080 is going to play

00:19:55.560 with your mind

00:19:56.120 and it says,

00:19:56.880 opens up one of the doors

00:19:57.940 you didn't pick

00:19:58.940 and it shows

00:20:00.240 that there's a goat

00:20:00.980 behind it.

00:20:02.940 And he then says,

00:20:04.160 all right,

00:20:04.940 now do you want

00:20:05.480 to pick door number two,

00:20:06.800 which is the only one

00:20:07.720 that's not picked

00:20:09.260 and not already opened?

00:20:11.720 Do you switch?

00:20:14.700 What do you do?

00:20:15.940 Now, keep in mind,

00:20:17.180 the smartest people

00:20:18.400 in the world

00:20:19.100 on this kind of stuff

00:20:21.660 disagree.

00:20:22.820 read.

00:20:26.120 Anyway,

00:20:27.760 I'm not even going

00:20:29.300 to tell you

00:20:29.560 what the answer is.

00:20:30.460 That's what makes it fun.

00:20:31.940 So, go look it up

00:20:33.880 if you want to.

00:20:34.480 But, here's,

00:20:35.980 I think,

00:20:36.520 the bottom line.

00:20:38.540 I think the way

00:20:39.400 to explain this is

00:20:40.440 it depends what you assume.

00:20:44.160 And,

00:20:44.720 that's the blind spot

00:20:47.080 for a lot of statistics.

00:20:49.660 That it's not really

00:20:50.440 the statistics

00:20:51.840 that are fooling you.

00:20:55.140 You're making

00:20:55.680 different assumptions

00:20:56.500 but you didn't realize it.

00:20:58.780 And so,

00:20:59.080 the different assumption

00:20:59.780 would be about,

00:21:01.200 for example,

00:21:02.540 was the host

00:21:03.340 always going to open

00:21:04.540 another door?

00:21:06.420 And was it always

00:21:07.540 going to be

00:21:07.940 door number three?

00:21:10.740 Right?

00:21:11.260 So, if you knew

00:21:12.880 that the host

00:21:13.820 was always going

00:21:14.600 to do something,

00:21:15.500 would your assumption

00:21:16.080 be different

00:21:16.640 than if you thought

00:21:17.840 that it spontaneously

00:21:18.780 thought that

00:21:19.660 based on what you chose?

00:21:22.080 So, all of these

00:21:23.140 have a different

00:21:24.160 set of information

00:21:25.180 that's being revealed

00:21:27.100 and that's what

00:21:28.060 makes it interesting.

00:21:29.080 Now, my point

00:21:29.800 is not what's true

00:21:30.680 and what's not

00:21:31.160 about this.

00:21:32.140 My point is that

00:21:33.180 there's really

00:21:34.480 a big difference

00:21:35.580 between what you think

00:21:36.680 looks logical

00:21:37.440 and what is not.

00:21:39.600 Now, here's what

00:21:40.040 I'm going to ask you

00:21:40.780 because I'm not

00:21:41.640 great at statistics

00:21:42.560 but I think

00:21:43.680 this is true.

00:21:45.420 Let's say if you

00:21:46.180 have something

00:21:46.660 that's a one

00:21:47.260 in a hundred odds.

00:21:50.480 What are the odds

00:21:51.360 that happens?

00:21:52.240 One in a hundred.

00:21:53.800 Let's say the odds

00:21:54.880 are 200 to two.

00:21:59.700 What are the odds?

00:22:01.400 Well, the same

00:22:01.900 as 100 to one, right?

00:22:03.860 200 to two

00:22:04.680 is the same

00:22:05.040 as 100 to one.

00:22:05.720 Just math.

00:22:07.820 But what about this?

00:22:08.920 If I told you

00:22:10.660 that you had

00:22:11.280 one shot

00:22:12.240 to win something

00:22:14.560 that's 100 to one

00:22:15.460 and you just

00:22:16.580 take your one shot

00:22:17.520 or I tell you

00:22:20.340 you can take

00:22:20.900 100 to one shot

00:22:21.920 over and over

00:22:22.640 and over again,

00:22:23.800 which one has

00:22:25.180 a better chance

00:22:25.960 of you winning?

00:22:27.220 The one where

00:22:28.040 you do it once,

00:22:28.940 it's 100 to one

00:22:29.820 or you can do it

00:22:31.860 a number of times

00:22:32.960 but it's always

00:22:33.740 100 to one.

00:22:34.520 The people

00:22:39.580 who study statistics

00:22:40.920 would say

00:22:41.560 it's the same, right?

00:22:44.000 Yeah, the people

00:22:45.040 who are the smartest

00:22:45.740 about statistics

00:22:46.580 would say

00:22:47.180 that's a pretty

00:22:48.340 basic one,

00:22:49.040 it's the same.

00:22:50.480 But here's where

00:22:51.460 the common sense fails.

00:22:54.160 If I only get

00:22:55.180 one shot,

00:22:56.200 I'm there and done.

00:22:58.540 But if I can do it

00:22:59.740 infinite times,

00:23:01.160 there's a 100% chance

00:23:03.040 I'm going to get that.

00:23:06.460 Am I wrong?

00:23:08.040 If I can do it

00:23:09.080 infinitely,

00:23:10.240 no matter,

00:23:10.820 I just do the

00:23:11.760 100 to one forever

00:23:12.720 until it hits,

00:23:15.280 so how could the

00:23:16.140 odds be the same

00:23:17.020 if one of them

00:23:18.820 is 100% chance

00:23:19.980 of winning

00:23:20.300 and one of them

00:23:21.060 is 100 to one?

00:23:24.040 But they are.

00:23:26.780 Right?

00:23:27.780 Now, of course,

00:23:29.080 it depends on,

00:23:30.480 right,

00:23:30.980 now I think it

00:23:31.600 depends a little bit

00:23:32.720 on whether you can

00:23:35.320 do something

00:23:35.840 infinite times.

00:23:37.180 If you're going

00:23:37.900 to do something

00:23:38.440 just twice,

00:23:39.820 is there a big

00:23:41.220 difference?

00:23:42.660 Let's say you're

00:23:43.460 limited to twice.

00:23:44.860 It's either once

00:23:45.720 100 to one

00:23:46.460 or you can do it

00:23:47.980 twice.

00:23:49.440 In that case,

00:23:51.320 I'm pretty sure

00:23:52.320 the odds are

00:23:52.960 so close to identical

00:23:54.380 that they're

00:23:55.000 basically identical.

00:23:57.280 Am I right?

00:23:58.140 But it's the

00:24:01.000 infinity that

00:24:02.100 makes it

00:24:02.940 completely opposite.

00:24:05.140 So,

00:24:05.860 now,

00:24:06.380 if there's

00:24:07.140 anybody here

00:24:07.640 who knows a lot

00:24:08.220 more about

00:24:08.620 statistics than I

00:24:09.740 do,

00:24:10.040 and I imagine

00:24:10.480 that's quite a few

00:24:11.160 of you,

00:24:11.560 actually,

00:24:12.180 some of you

00:24:13.260 are probably

00:24:13.640 thinking,

00:24:14.660 Scott,

00:24:15.080 you have this

00:24:15.520 all wrong,

00:24:16.520 you've described

00:24:17.160 it wrong,

00:24:17.760 you got the

00:24:18.180 Monty Hall

00:24:18.680 thing wrong,

00:24:19.520 and that's my

00:24:20.200 point.

00:24:21.300 That's my

00:24:21.760 point.

00:24:22.600 My point is

00:24:23.620 that you

00:24:24.940 could be

00:24:25.260 reasonably smart

00:24:26.260 and statistics

00:24:27.260 are still

00:24:27.800 sort of a

00:24:28.260 weird blind

00:24:28.800 spot,

00:24:29.980 and that even

00:24:30.880 people who

00:24:31.360 understand them

00:24:32.120 can disagree.

00:24:34.980 So,

00:24:35.540 this 100 to

00:24:36.040 one thing

00:24:36.520 is the one

00:24:37.320 that's been

00:24:37.740 puzzling me

00:24:39.500 forever.

00:24:41.060 And when I

00:24:41.640 see something

00:24:42.140 that cannot

00:24:43.180 be false

00:24:43.920 and cannot

00:24:44.480 be true

00:24:44.940 at the same

00:24:45.400 time,

00:24:46.560 I tell myself

00:24:48.060 that can only

00:24:48.580 be because of

00:24:49.140 the simulation.

00:24:50.560 But,

00:24:50.980 of course,

00:24:51.200 that's not

00:24:51.560 true.

00:24:52.380 It could be

00:24:52.780 just something

00:24:53.480 else I don't

00:24:53.960 know.

00:24:55.380 All right.

00:24:56.820 Now,

00:24:57.700 I might make

00:24:58.880 that meaningful

00:24:59.380 in a moment.

00:25:01.020 So,

00:25:01.600 here's something

00:25:02.080 you need to

00:25:02.580 understand,

00:25:03.160 and I think

00:25:03.500 we all

00:25:03.920 understand this

00:25:04.580 in 2022

00:25:05.360 in a way

00:25:06.120 we never

00:25:06.560 understood it,

00:25:07.620 say,

00:25:07.920 five years

00:25:08.320 ago,

00:25:09.400 that a lot

00:25:10.400 of the news

00:25:10.940 that is true

00:25:11.800 news,

00:25:12.760 meaning it

00:25:13.240 actually happened,

00:25:14.660 is also

00:25:15.340 fake news.

00:25:17.120 Because

00:25:17.600 somebody gets

00:25:19.500 to decide

00:25:20.080 what context

00:25:20.900 you see it

00:25:21.500 in,

00:25:21.720 and whether

00:25:23.800 or not

00:25:24.140 you see

00:25:24.580 something that

00:25:25.240 would change

00:25:26.140 your mind

00:25:26.580 if you saw

00:25:27.080 something else.

00:25:28.400 So,

00:25:28.940 we've sort

00:25:30.040 of left

00:25:30.540 a realm

00:25:31.200 where the

00:25:31.820 news is

00:25:32.220 either true

00:25:32.760 or false,

00:25:33.660 and that's

00:25:34.040 what matters.

00:25:35.360 Because a lot

00:25:36.160 of the news

00:25:36.620 that I call

00:25:37.080 fake news

00:25:37.780 on CNN

00:25:38.540 is completely

00:25:39.900 true news

00:25:40.660 that they've

00:25:42.040 presented in a

00:25:42.800 way that's

00:25:43.380 clearly meant

00:25:44.040 to mislead.

00:25:44.700 so if

00:25:46.400 it's

00:25:46.660 technically

00:25:47.360 true,

00:25:47.980 but presented

00:25:48.700 in a way

00:25:49.180 to mislead,

00:25:50.140 obviously,

00:25:51.800 I'd call

00:25:52.800 that fake

00:25:53.220 news as

00:25:53.680 well.

00:25:54.780 But here's

00:25:55.500 a real

00:25:55.780 question.

00:25:56.860 How much

00:25:57.360 of what

00:25:58.300 you see

00:25:58.800 that's maybe

00:25:59.500 technically

00:26:00.100 true and

00:26:00.900 sometimes not

00:26:01.560 even,

00:26:02.540 lots of times

00:26:03.120 not even,

00:26:03.940 how much

00:26:04.900 of that

00:26:05.180 is organic?

00:26:07.200 Meaning

00:26:07.560 that there

00:26:08.080 was just

00:26:08.560 the business

00:26:09.820 model of

00:26:10.520 the news

00:26:12.380 entity

00:26:12.780 just said,

00:26:13.360 oh,

00:26:13.680 we'll get

00:26:14.100 more clicks

00:26:14.620 if we do

00:26:15.080 this,

00:26:15.720 so that's

00:26:16.080 sort of

00:26:16.340 organic.

00:26:18.320 And how

00:26:18.660 much of it

00:26:19.220 is because

00:26:19.740 outside forces

00:26:20.740 have caused

00:26:21.620 it to happen?

00:26:23.500 Now,

00:26:24.080 if you have

00:26:24.460 a degree

00:26:24.800 in economics,

00:26:25.940 I always say

00:26:26.520 that knowing

00:26:27.080 economics gives

00:26:28.760 you like

00:26:29.180 another field

00:26:30.340 of vision.

00:26:31.700 You can just

00:26:32.140 see things

00:26:32.600 more clearly

00:26:33.160 if you understand

00:26:33.980 the world

00:26:34.780 of money.

00:26:36.060 And,

00:26:36.320 you know,

00:26:36.520 the short

00:26:37.040 version of that

00:26:37.600 is follow

00:26:38.100 the money.

00:26:38.860 But if you

00:26:39.280 know economics,

00:26:40.000 you can follow

00:26:40.540 it a little

00:26:40.880 more easily.

00:26:41.320 And economics

00:26:43.620 suggests that

00:26:44.900 given a

00:26:46.780 baseline beginning

00:26:47.960 of the media

00:26:48.900 companies,

00:26:50.680 that over time

00:26:51.840 they would all

00:26:52.520 be captured

00:26:53.160 by people

00:26:55.460 with money.

00:26:56.900 Let me say

00:26:57.340 that again.

00:26:58.640 Any understanding

00:26:59.560 of economics,

00:27:00.580 and if there

00:27:01.760 are people

00:27:02.080 who have

00:27:02.560 economics

00:27:03.180 backgrounds,

00:27:04.700 can you back

00:27:05.320 me on this

00:27:05.820 or even deny

00:27:06.640 it?

00:27:07.000 So look at

00:27:07.380 the comments

00:27:07.960 if you're

00:27:09.900 not

00:27:10.140 versed

00:27:11.500 in

00:27:11.620 economics,

00:27:12.840 economics

00:27:14.000 would

00:27:14.360 guarantee,

00:27:15.660 just guarantee,

00:27:17.260 that over

00:27:17.700 time all

00:27:19.360 the news

00:27:19.780 would be

00:27:20.160 owned by

00:27:20.960 people with

00:27:22.060 money who

00:27:22.620 are not

00:27:23.040 technically

00:27:23.640 part of

00:27:24.000 the news.

00:27:25.520 Right?

00:27:26.620 Now the

00:27:27.280 only question

00:27:27.800 is how long

00:27:28.360 it takes

00:27:28.960 and whether

00:27:30.460 it's happened

00:27:31.120 to every

00:27:31.560 new entity.

00:27:32.720 I'm going

00:27:33.180 to name

00:27:33.480 a name

00:27:33.820 but I'm

00:27:34.120 not going

00:27:34.380 to make

00:27:34.580 an accusation

00:27:35.280 about them.

00:27:35.980 Okay?

00:27:36.780 This is just

00:27:37.300 an example.

00:27:37.780 So Axios

00:27:39.240 is a relatively

00:27:40.200 new entity.

00:27:42.880 Could it

00:27:43.500 be that some

00:27:44.080 newer entities

00:27:44.800 don't have

00:27:45.500 money influence

00:27:46.220 when they

00:27:46.600 start but

00:27:48.340 that over

00:27:48.720 time economics

00:27:49.660 would guarantee

00:27:50.420 that they

00:27:50.860 did?

00:27:52.000 Now it

00:27:52.480 also,

00:27:53.460 economics also

00:27:54.520 largely guarantees

00:27:55.560 that it has it

00:27:56.140 when it starts

00:27:56.740 but it doesn't

00:27:58.980 totally guarantee

00:28:00.060 it, right?

00:28:00.780 So, you know,

00:28:01.560 I'm not making

00:28:02.040 any accusation

00:28:02.800 about Axios.

00:28:03.540 They have a good

00:28:04.040 reputation as a

00:28:05.040 matter of fact

00:28:05.520 and I

00:28:06.980 recommend it.

00:28:07.620 I would go

00:28:07.920 further.

00:28:08.380 I would say

00:28:08.740 I've added

00:28:10.520 Axios to my

00:28:11.600 sort of daily

00:28:12.420 scan.

00:28:14.360 It's worth

00:28:14.840 doing.

00:28:16.880 But anyway,

00:28:18.080 and this is

00:28:19.300 very relevant

00:28:19.900 as we're

00:28:20.340 watching the

00:28:20.880 Joe Rogan

00:28:21.480 situation.

00:28:22.860 In case you

00:28:23.440 didn't think I

00:28:23.980 was going to

00:28:24.260 make this

00:28:24.580 relevant.

00:28:25.940 Because have

00:28:26.700 you noticed,

00:28:27.240 as I say,

00:28:28.440 the continuing

00:28:29.280 Roganization of

00:28:30.600 America,

00:28:31.800 which means that

00:28:32.460 all stories must

00:28:33.340 be told through

00:28:34.220 the filter of

00:28:35.060 what did Joe

00:28:35.720 Rogan think

00:28:36.340 about it

00:28:36.820 or say

00:28:37.740 about it

00:28:38.380 or one of

00:28:39.360 his guests.

00:28:41.060 And it's

00:28:42.780 becoming a

00:28:43.820 little bit more

00:28:44.400 obvious thanks

00:28:45.440 to observers

00:28:46.220 such as Glenn

00:28:47.360 Greenwald.

00:28:48.920 And I'm going

00:28:49.460 to tell you

00:28:49.800 what he has

00:28:50.280 to say about

00:28:50.760 it.

00:28:51.160 Now remember,

00:28:51.860 economics

00:28:52.420 suggests that

00:28:54.020 all news will

00:28:54.940 become fake

00:28:55.700 over time,

00:28:56.980 if only in

00:28:58.100 the way the

00:28:58.680 context is

00:28:59.380 presented,

00:28:59.980 not necessarily

00:29:00.640 the detail of

00:29:01.340 the news.

00:29:02.660 So Glenn

00:29:03.280 Greenwald tweets

00:29:04.140 this,

00:29:05.140 it was only

00:29:05.660 a question

00:29:06.200 of time,

00:29:07.660 it was only

00:29:09.160 a question

00:29:09.560 of time

00:29:10.120 before the

00:29:11.200 all-out war

00:29:11.940 on Rogan

00:29:12.580 began.

00:29:13.640 He's way

00:29:14.160 too big

00:29:14.740 and off-key

00:29:15.720 to permit

00:29:16.880 him to keep

00:29:17.500 going.

00:29:18.420 The concept

00:29:19.220 of free speech

00:29:20.000 in the U.S.

00:29:20.520 is a mirage.

00:29:21.800 You have it

00:29:22.440 right up to the

00:29:23.040 point where

00:29:23.420 it matters

00:29:24.020 or can threaten

00:29:24.960 power centers,

00:29:26.140 then you don't.

00:29:28.100 It was only

00:29:28.940 a matter of time.

00:29:30.600 In other words,

00:29:31.200 the economics

00:29:32.020 of Joe Rogan,

00:29:34.480 his success,

00:29:35.760 made him big

00:29:36.720 enough that he

00:29:37.900 was sucking

00:29:38.440 power away

00:29:39.240 from the

00:29:39.580 existing power

00:29:40.440 centers.

00:29:41.440 So what

00:29:42.160 economics suggests

00:29:43.700 is that the

00:29:44.760 existing power

00:29:45.560 centers would

00:29:46.420 attack.

00:29:48.820 Now,

00:29:49.580 that's not

00:29:50.100 proof that

00:29:50.740 they did,

00:29:52.160 right?

00:29:53.140 We're just in

00:29:54.060 a situation

00:29:54.600 that says,

00:29:55.100 wait a minute,

00:29:55.960 whenever you

00:29:56.640 have this

00:29:57.060 situation,

00:29:58.540 you can

00:29:59.160 reasonably

00:29:59.840 predict,

00:30:01.000 if it hasn't

00:30:01.840 happened yet,

00:30:02.980 it's going to

00:30:04.180 happen.

00:30:05.380 How many

00:30:05.860 who have a

00:30:06.280 degree or

00:30:06.880 background in

00:30:07.540 economics will

00:30:08.840 back me on

00:30:09.440 that?

00:30:10.760 That once he

00:30:11.900 became a threat

00:30:12.740 to eyeballs

00:30:13.600 and credibility,

00:30:15.240 and he became

00:30:15.740 big enough,

00:30:16.960 they had to

00:30:17.980 attack him

00:30:18.560 for pure

00:30:20.340 economic

00:30:21.100 incentive.

00:30:22.600 You couldn't

00:30:23.080 not do it,

00:30:23.660 really.

00:30:24.980 So sure enough,

00:30:25.820 you see all

00:30:26.500 the other

00:30:26.900 big media

00:30:27.460 centers start

00:30:28.040 to attack

00:30:28.460 him.

00:30:29.260 But then

00:30:29.600 the question

00:30:30.040 is, is

00:30:31.680 that truly

00:30:32.200 organic?

00:30:33.800 Because it

00:30:34.960 would be

00:30:35.460 organic in

00:30:36.300 terms of

00:30:36.800 economics is

00:30:37.800 organic, if

00:30:39.700 they just

00:30:40.060 said, hey,

00:30:40.680 he's my

00:30:41.120 competition now.

00:30:42.580 So just like

00:30:43.180 CNN and Fox

00:30:44.120 News go after

00:30:44.880 other each

00:30:45.620 night, you

00:30:46.840 would expect

00:30:47.280 them to turn

00:30:47.840 on Rogan,

00:30:48.900 and likewise

00:30:49.420 you would expect

00:30:50.100 Rogan to turn

00:30:50.880 on at least

00:30:51.740 CNN, which

00:30:53.080 he did.

00:30:54.260 So all of

00:30:55.420 the part

00:30:55.760 which is

00:30:56.160 just, you

00:30:57.140 know, media

00:30:57.720 entities

00:30:58.260 insulting each

00:30:59.640 other, that's

00:31:01.220 organic.

00:31:02.540 But is there

00:31:03.180 a level

00:31:03.540 beyond that

00:31:04.380 where somebody

00:31:05.640 is putting

00:31:05.980 extra money

00:31:06.680 in you

00:31:06.940 don't know

00:31:07.360 about?

00:31:09.100 Because did

00:31:11.040 you notice

00:31:11.640 the interesting

00:31:13.320 timing that

00:31:14.900 the very

00:31:15.300 moment that

00:31:15.860 Joe Rogan

00:31:16.560 seemed to

00:31:17.500 have weathered

00:31:18.200 the storm

00:31:18.740 about

00:31:19.300 Ivermectin

00:31:20.680 and Dr.

00:31:21.440 Malone and

00:31:22.080 Dr.

00:31:22.440 McAuliffe,

00:31:23.740 that the

00:31:24.080 moment it

00:31:24.540 looked like he

00:31:25.060 could weather

00:31:25.500 that, well

00:31:26.600 look, suddenly

00:31:27.600 there's a

00:31:28.080 compilation

00:31:28.480 video of

00:31:30.080 him using

00:31:30.600 the N-word.

00:31:31.820 Of course, he

00:31:32.420 only used it

00:31:33.080 in the context

00:31:33.800 of talking

00:31:34.460 about it, but

00:31:36.040 that would be

00:31:36.740 left out of

00:31:37.200 the video.

00:31:39.460 So then he

00:31:40.240 had to

00:31:40.520 apologize about

00:31:41.260 that, which

00:31:41.620 is a whole

00:31:42.360 sub-story.

00:31:43.860 But here's

00:31:45.560 a hypothesis.

00:31:49.220 this comes

00:31:50.180 from Twitter

00:31:52.160 user

00:31:52.660 Wokal

00:31:53.580 Distance.

00:31:55.180 W-O-K-A-L

00:31:57.240 Distance.

00:31:58.760 So just

00:31:59.220 search him

00:32:00.280 or her, I

00:32:01.800 don't know,

00:32:02.520 on Twitter.

00:32:03.900 But I'm going

00:32:04.480 to read you

00:32:05.040 that thread

00:32:06.200 because, and

00:32:08.240 I'm not going

00:32:08.660 to endorse

00:32:09.080 the thread.

00:32:10.700 So there's a

00:32:11.840 conclusion reached

00:32:12.800 in this thread

00:32:13.500 that I do not

00:32:14.760 personally reach.

00:32:16.760 But, whether

00:32:18.180 or not the

00:32:18.600 conclusion is

00:32:19.260 right, follow

00:32:20.920 the logic,

00:32:22.360 because it

00:32:22.900 suggests that

00:32:23.520 if it hasn't

00:32:24.060 happened, it

00:32:24.540 will.

00:32:26.260 All right?

00:32:27.060 So Wokal

00:32:27.960 Distance has

00:32:28.580 this thread.

00:32:30.240 And he's

00:32:30.600 responding to

00:32:31.240 somebody who

00:32:31.700 goes, blah,

00:32:32.120 blah.

00:32:32.940 Since you

00:32:33.520 asked, and I

00:32:34.000 love your work,

00:32:34.620 as he's talking

00:32:35.160 to somebody

00:32:35.580 else, he

00:32:35.940 says, I'll

00:32:36.240 tell you.

00:32:37.120 This is a

00:32:37.900 professional

00:32:38.440 political attack.

00:32:40.040 So that's his

00:32:40.840 hypothesis about

00:32:41.720 the Joe Rogan

00:32:42.320 stuff.

00:32:44.160 Three waves,

00:32:45.360 one right

00:32:45.900 after the

00:32:46.320 other, is

00:32:46.840 not a

00:32:47.180 coincidence.

00:32:48.340 Good

00:32:48.660 spacing, good

00:32:49.980 timing, so

00:32:51.120 it's absolutely

00:32:51.800 professional.

00:32:53.400 So in other

00:32:53.880 words, somebody

00:32:54.420 who understands

00:32:55.340 this world is

00:32:56.940 saying, if you

00:32:57.520 see somebody

00:32:58.040 murdered and

00:32:58.680 it's two in

00:32:59.300 the chest, one

00:32:59.900 in the head,

00:33:01.020 probably not a

00:33:01.900 coincidence.

00:33:03.080 It looks like

00:33:03.600 professional work.

00:33:05.700 But who is

00:33:06.660 it, you ask?

00:33:08.080 That takes

00:33:08.800 some digging.

00:33:09.920 But, and

00:33:10.840 then he does

00:33:11.220 some digging.

00:33:12.580 He goes, the

00:33:13.520 video compilation

00:33:14.360 of Rogan

00:33:14.920 saying the

00:33:15.340 N-word was

00:33:15.880 dropped by

00:33:16.680 at Patriot

00:33:18.280 Takes, an

00:33:19.020 organization, I

00:33:19.740 guess, six

00:33:21.080 days ago.

00:33:22.200 You see the

00:33:22.720 video in the

00:33:23.800 tweet, in

00:33:24.380 picture one, so

00:33:25.160 he shows a

00:33:25.560 picture, and

00:33:26.420 Patriot Takes

00:33:27.140 takes credit for

00:33:28.140 republishing,

00:33:29.340 republishing the

00:33:30.500 information.

00:33:33.240 That they take

00:33:34.160 credit is important

00:33:35.140 and you'll see

00:33:35.860 why.

00:33:36.440 All right, so

00:33:36.760 there's an

00:33:37.120 organization that

00:33:38.680 republished it,

00:33:40.640 but also takes

00:33:41.460 credit for it.

00:33:42.240 Interesting that

00:33:43.300 they republished

00:33:44.140 it instead of

00:33:45.480 published it, but

00:33:46.940 then they took

00:33:47.420 credit for it.

00:33:48.880 Interesting.

00:33:50.000 And then the

00:33:50.880 local distance

00:33:51.620 goes on.

00:33:52.100 As you can see

00:33:52.620 in their bio,

00:33:53.780 Patriot Takes is

00:33:54.500 partnered with

00:33:55.280 at Midas

00:33:57.080 Touch, another

00:33:58.460 organization.

00:33:59.620 And this is where

00:34:00.500 it gets interesting.

00:34:01.840 Who is Midas

00:34:02.740 Touch?

00:34:03.740 Well, they are a

00:34:05.080 professional,

00:34:05.780 political organization.

00:34:07.360 In fact, they

00:34:09.100 are a Democrat

00:34:09.900 super PAC.

00:34:11.560 More on that in a

00:34:12.380 moment.

00:34:13.280 Run by three

00:34:14.040 brothers.

00:34:16.360 All right, this

00:34:17.060 is all local

00:34:17.640 distances thread.

00:34:19.480 The three

00:34:19.920 brothers, Ben,

00:34:20.760 Brett, and

00:34:21.240 Jordan Misalas,

00:34:22.940 I guess, all of

00:34:24.060 them have worked

00:34:24.660 in media and

00:34:25.780 have expertise in

00:34:26.940 understanding and

00:34:27.960 manipulating media.

00:34:29.480 The most important

00:34:30.440 thing for us is

00:34:31.400 that Brett was a

00:34:32.740 social media manager

00:34:33.780 for Ellen DeGeneres

00:34:35.080 and is an expert

00:34:36.380 editor.

00:34:37.360 Which matters

00:34:38.080 because Patriot

00:34:40.280 Takes works with

00:34:41.260 Midas Touch, and

00:34:42.820 I'd say it's a

00:34:43.540 safe bet.

00:34:44.160 Now, this is

00:34:44.600 vocal distance

00:34:45.340 talking in this

00:34:46.120 thread.

00:34:46.740 I'd say it's a

00:34:47.340 safe bet, but

00:34:48.040 given their

00:34:48.420 expertise in

00:34:49.180 social media

00:34:49.740 management, that

00:34:51.100 the N-word video

00:34:52.100 was created by

00:34:53.120 Midas Touch.

00:34:53.940 Now, I'm not

00:34:54.480 saying this.

00:34:55.740 This is an

00:34:56.260 allegation in this

00:34:57.740 thread.

00:34:58.540 But we are not

00:34:59.500 done.

00:35:00.880 Midas Touch is a

00:35:01.760 super PAC.

00:35:02.940 Well, what's a

00:35:04.060 super PAC, you

00:35:04.780 ask?

00:35:05.280 Well, a

00:35:06.340 super PAC is a

00:35:07.800 political advocacy

00:35:09.220 group with a

00:35:10.540 special twist.

00:35:11.980 Super PACs may

00:35:12.760 raise unlimited

00:35:13.640 sums of money

00:35:14.500 from corporations,

00:35:15.480 unions, associations,

00:35:16.640 and individuals,

00:35:17.560 then spend unlimited

00:35:18.880 sums to overtly

00:35:20.120 advocate for or

00:35:21.300 against political

00:35:22.060 candidates.

00:35:23.680 So, in other

00:35:24.320 words, they can

00:35:24.760 gather tons of

00:35:25.440 money and use it

00:35:26.600 to influence

00:35:27.340 elections.

00:35:28.660 This means that a

00:35:29.560 super PAC can take

00:35:30.520 in unlimited amounts

00:35:31.460 of money and then

00:35:32.700 spend however they

00:35:33.480 want politically.

00:35:34.120 Midas Touch is a

00:35:35.440 super PAC.

00:35:35.980 They can take

00:35:36.440 in as much cash

00:35:37.180 as they want,

00:35:38.100 $4.7 million for

00:35:39.960 the 2020 cycle and

00:35:41.200 $1.5 million for

00:35:42.780 the 2022 cycle, to

00:35:44.620 be exact.

00:35:46.660 And he shows his

00:35:47.640 sources.

00:35:48.320 To recap, Midas

00:35:49.120 Touch, a super PAC

00:35:50.180 which can collect as

00:35:51.100 much cash as it

00:35:51.920 wants from pretty

00:35:52.820 well anywhere and

00:35:54.180 is a professional

00:35:54.980 strategy and media

00:35:56.240 firm run by people

00:35:58.000 with deep ties and

00:35:58.960 entertainment, likely

00:36:00.540 had a hand in the

00:36:01.540 N-word video.

00:36:02.280 Now, we don't have

00:36:03.600 proof and there's

00:36:05.000 no allegation of

00:36:05.860 proof, just likely

00:36:08.180 associations and a

00:36:09.720 hypothesis.

00:36:12.000 And that they work

00:36:13.800 together, blah, blah.

00:36:14.680 So, the question is

00:36:15.680 why?

00:36:16.480 Why are they doing

00:36:17.220 this and what do

00:36:17.840 they have to gain?

00:36:18.860 I think a clue can be

00:36:19.980 found in the letter

00:36:20.700 that Patriot Takes

00:36:22.280 wrote about all of

00:36:23.700 this.

00:36:24.580 Look at the

00:36:25.120 highlighted part.

00:36:25.980 Now, he highlights

00:36:26.660 the part of their

00:36:27.200 letter.

00:36:27.540 It's an official

00:36:28.120 statement in response

00:36:29.200 to the Joe Rogan

00:36:30.080 apology.

00:36:30.440 says that this is

00:36:32.280 what Patriot Takes

00:36:33.020 said.

00:36:33.360 The past week,

00:36:34.040 Patriot Takes

00:36:34.440 republished and

00:36:35.240 brought to the

00:36:36.180 national spotlight

00:36:37.780 dozens of recorded

00:36:38.800 instances where Joe

00:36:40.500 Rogan used the N-word,

00:36:41.760 blah, blah, blah.

00:36:42.780 But, of course, the

00:36:44.560 context was talking

00:36:46.400 about the use of it.

00:36:48.120 He didn't use it in

00:36:49.300 its native form.

00:36:50.360 He was talking about

00:36:51.320 it.

00:36:52.320 And the videos have

00:36:53.440 now received millions

00:36:54.180 of views.

00:36:55.340 So, local distance

00:36:56.620 says, Patriot Takes is

00:36:58.100 bragging about their

00:36:59.040 millions of views.

00:36:59.920 and how they made

00:37:01.080 the video at the

00:37:01.760 center of the

00:37:02.340 national conversation.

00:37:03.840 They're bragging

00:37:04.820 about their clout.

00:37:07.880 Rogan is the one

00:37:08.560 guy the leftists

00:37:09.260 can't cancel.

00:37:10.340 If a group could

00:37:11.080 cancel Rogan, it

00:37:11.940 would be a massive

00:37:12.660 show of power.

00:37:15.460 Woke people in

00:37:16.440 legacy media groups

00:37:17.440 have been trying to

00:37:18.100 cancel Rogan for

00:37:18.880 ages because he

00:37:20.120 steals their audiences

00:37:21.020 and doesn't play

00:37:22.080 by their rules.

00:37:23.180 Rogan also...

00:37:23.920 Um...

00:37:25.060 B-b-b-b...

00:37:25.920 Rogan also offers

00:37:27.800 this enormous platform

00:37:28.700 to people like

00:37:29.480 Jordan Peterson

00:37:30.180 that woke progressives

00:37:31.920 and media circles

00:37:32.680 really don't like.

00:37:34.180 The group that

00:37:35.120 takes out Rogan

00:37:36.120 would gain a lot

00:37:37.400 of clout

00:37:38.040 and a lot of power.

00:37:40.080 The group that

00:37:41.000 can say,

00:37:41.660 we canceled Rogan,

00:37:42.700 if we can get him,

00:37:43.580 we can get you too,

00:37:45.080 would be able to

00:37:45.960 swing a very large

00:37:47.080 stick.

00:37:47.500 And that's what

00:37:49.140 this is ultimately

00:37:49.800 about.

00:37:50.520 It's a play for power,

00:37:51.560 says Wokeal Distance

00:37:53.200 in this thread.

00:37:54.760 In short,

00:37:56.280 goes on Wokeal Distance,

00:37:58.680 Media's Touch is a

00:38:00.100 political super PAC

00:38:01.020 that is very likely

00:38:01.820 behind the Patriot

00:38:02.560 takes account.

00:38:03.540 They're attempting

00:38:03.920 a viral hit on Joe

00:38:04.820 Rogan so they can

00:38:05.440 take him out both

00:38:06.100 because they don't

00:38:06.680 like him and because

00:38:07.960 they want monetizable

00:38:08.980 clout for having done

00:38:10.120 so.

00:38:11.580 Blah, blah, blah.

00:38:12.080 It goes on some

00:38:12.640 more.

00:38:13.340 Now, let me be

00:38:15.460 very clear.

00:38:16.040 I am not endorsing

00:38:17.880 or backing the

00:38:18.860 hypothesis in this

00:38:20.200 thread.

00:38:21.320 But what I am

00:38:22.240 endorsing is the

00:38:23.880 understanding of how

00:38:24.920 things work.

00:38:26.340 It's a very good

00:38:27.340 description of how

00:38:28.960 things work.

00:38:30.820 Now, it gets more

00:38:32.400 interesting.

00:38:34.680 How many other

00:38:35.920 people need to get

00:38:36.820 taken out, either

00:38:38.340 because of somebody's

00:38:39.260 business model,

00:38:40.420 just competition,

00:38:41.800 or for political

00:38:43.220 clout?

00:38:44.100 How much of the

00:38:45.060 Joe Rogan situation

00:38:46.020 do you think might

00:38:46.760 be somebody just

00:38:48.140 proving they can do

00:38:49.160 it?

00:38:50.300 Could be that.

00:38:51.860 How much of it is

00:38:53.020 Democrats don't want

00:38:54.400 him to have a voice?

00:38:55.860 Could be that,

00:38:56.980 especially as the

00:38:57.820 next election comes

00:38:58.980 up.

00:39:01.040 And how much of it

00:39:02.020 is organic and how

00:39:02.920 much of it is, you

00:39:04.360 know, business models?

00:39:06.360 I don't know.

00:39:07.800 But, whenever you see

00:39:11.260 something like this,

00:39:12.100 I know you want me to

00:39:14.460 talk about the fact

00:39:15.180 that Joe Rogan did

00:39:17.100 another video, I

00:39:19.120 guess you could call

00:39:19.900 it an apology, in

00:39:21.500 which he described

00:39:22.180 the context and he

00:39:23.320 was horrified seeing

00:39:24.440 the video himself.

00:39:25.900 I don't have much to

00:39:27.000 say about it.

00:39:28.440 You know, some people

00:39:29.100 said it was too far.

00:39:30.480 I get that point.

00:39:32.100 Some people said

00:39:33.020 never apologize.

00:39:34.160 I get that point.

00:39:34.900 But, I'll say it

00:39:37.380 again.

00:39:39.440 Be very careful

00:39:40.600 when you second

00:39:41.940 guess people who

00:39:42.920 are far more

00:39:43.620 successful than you

00:39:44.560 are at this stuff.

00:39:48.840 Right?

00:39:49.960 Take a little bit

00:39:51.080 of humility when

00:39:52.920 you're looking at

00:39:53.500 somebody who built

00:39:54.460 a media empire with

00:39:57.000 nothing but his own

00:39:58.000 good judgment.

00:39:59.800 Am I right?

00:40:01.140 I mean, talent,

00:40:02.340 judgment, etc.

00:40:02.960 So, if you're saying

00:40:04.980 I would have

00:40:05.520 handled that

00:40:06.000 differently if I

00:40:06.740 were in his shoes,

00:40:08.240 you know what else

00:40:08.880 you would have

00:40:09.740 handled differently?

00:40:11.500 Everything.

00:40:13.120 That's why he got

00:40:15.100 a hundred million

00:40:15.660 dollars and you

00:40:16.300 didn't.

00:40:17.380 Because he doesn't

00:40:18.300 do it the way you

00:40:18.880 do it.

00:40:20.300 Be careful when

00:40:22.800 you criticize

00:40:23.340 somebody in their

00:40:24.460 own domain.

00:40:25.500 Remember, this is

00:40:26.920 his domain, it's

00:40:27.720 not yours.

00:40:29.120 His domain is

00:40:30.280 the public.

00:40:32.500 You know, how to

00:40:32.880 read the room.

00:40:34.560 He's literally, you

00:40:35.800 know, a stand-up

00:40:36.860 superhero in

00:40:39.100 today's world.

00:40:40.640 He stands in

00:40:41.640 front of audiences

00:40:42.320 and he feels

00:40:43.340 them, like in

00:40:44.740 real time.

00:40:45.980 He just feels

00:40:46.700 them.

00:40:47.440 He's about as

00:40:48.300 connected to his

00:40:51.680 base as anybody

00:40:53.740 but maybe Trump

00:40:55.180 was.

00:40:55.600 I hate to use

00:40:56.500 him in the same

00:40:56.940 sentence because

00:40:57.660 then it gets

00:40:58.520 political.

00:40:59.580 But, oh my God,

00:41:00.680 could there be

00:41:01.060 anybody who had

00:41:01.680 more experience

00:41:02.580 and is more

00:41:03.900 directly connected

00:41:04.860 like in a

00:41:05.440 visceral way

00:41:06.200 standing in

00:41:07.180 front of huge

00:41:07.740 crowds saying a

00:41:08.920 lot of the

00:41:09.200 stuff that he

00:41:09.680 probably says on

00:41:11.180 the show.

00:41:12.100 And then he

00:41:12.900 does the show

00:41:13.380 and he has

00:41:13.680 lots of

00:41:14.400 feedback.

00:41:15.320 So I'll tell

00:41:17.960 you my own

00:41:18.860 interpretation was

00:41:20.340 if it were me

00:41:21.380 it would have

00:41:22.620 been a lot

00:41:22.940 shorter.

00:41:24.440 But I give

00:41:25.060 that advice for

00:41:25.800 everybody for

00:41:26.480 everything.

00:41:26.920 I think his

00:41:30.220 instinct to say

00:41:31.120 something about

00:41:31.800 it felt right.

00:41:34.740 The general

00:41:35.580 message he said

00:41:36.360 about it felt

00:41:37.000 right but it

00:41:38.780 went away too

00:41:39.980 long.

00:41:42.000 He could have

00:41:42.640 hit the high

00:41:43.140 points with

00:41:43.820 exactly the same

00:41:44.620 point and I

00:41:46.140 just think it

00:41:46.760 would have been

00:41:47.080 punchier and

00:41:47.780 better.

00:41:48.500 But that's just

00:41:49.260 a general

00:41:49.760 statement I make

00:41:50.440 about everybody's

00:41:51.260 communication,

00:41:52.380 even my own.

00:41:54.000 If I reread my

00:41:55.140 own tweets I

00:41:55.800 always think well

00:41:56.340 I could have

00:41:56.740 left out a

00:41:57.540 word there.

00:41:58.600 So it's not

00:41:58.920 much of a

00:41:59.480 it's sort of

00:42:00.260 like saying

00:42:00.660 somebody should

00:42:01.200 have done

00:42:01.480 something sooner.

00:42:03.780 It's the most

00:42:04.460 generic attack you

00:42:05.580 could make.

00:42:06.460 You should have

00:42:06.860 done it sooner.

00:42:08.980 True of

00:42:09.640 everything that's

00:42:10.380 good.

00:42:12.100 All right so

00:42:12.560 that's all.

00:42:13.400 I mean I'm just

00:42:14.060 not too interested

00:42:14.820 in the apology

00:42:15.400 part because I'm

00:42:16.760 not going to

00:42:17.180 I'm just not

00:42:17.800 going to double

00:42:18.320 I just can't

00:42:20.720 get to the

00:42:21.000 point where I

00:42:21.480 can check his

00:42:24.160 work if I

00:42:25.240 can't do his

00:42:25.900 work.

00:42:27.160 Am I right?

00:42:28.480 Don't check his

00:42:29.300 work if you

00:42:29.880 can't do his

00:42:30.420 work.

00:42:31.060 And I can't

00:42:31.580 do it.

00:42:32.200 I don't have

00:42:32.660 11 million

00:42:34.320 followers.

00:42:36.540 So but because

00:42:39.660 everything in the

00:42:40.280 world is really

00:42:41.080 about me this

00:42:42.980 brings me to

00:42:43.860 me.

00:42:46.100 And here's

00:42:47.420 some information

00:42:48.000 you might not

00:42:48.880 have known.

00:42:49.780 My audience is

00:42:50.940 down about

00:42:51.780 25 percent

00:42:54.280 maybe 30

00:42:56.200 I don't

00:42:56.480 know.

00:42:57.960 You can

00:42:58.600 you can follow

00:42:59.160 it on a graph

00:42:59.800 and it just

00:43:00.480 went boom.

00:43:01.720 And it

00:43:02.160 happened kind

00:43:02.660 of quickly.

00:43:04.020 Now there are

00:43:04.980 two reasons for

00:43:05.680 this I imagine.

00:43:07.440 Number one is

00:43:08.260 talking too much

00:43:09.020 about the

00:43:09.340 pandemic and

00:43:10.860 a whole lot

00:43:11.820 of the world

00:43:12.300 has moved

00:43:12.780 on.

00:43:13.620 So I think I

00:43:14.440 had far too

00:43:15.080 much of a

00:43:15.500 California

00:43:16.000 perspective

00:43:16.620 because I was

00:43:18.300 you know I was

00:43:19.020 still in the

00:43:19.440 prison camp

00:43:20.020 and still

00:43:20.420 am.

00:43:21.400 You know so

00:43:21.780 the people

00:43:22.140 who are out

00:43:22.640 of the prison

00:43:23.160 are not going

00:43:24.700 to be so

00:43:25.220 interested in

00:43:25.840 every day

00:43:26.300 hearing prison

00:43:27.020 stories.

00:43:28.220 I get it.

00:43:29.520 I get it.

00:43:30.840 But I tried

00:43:31.920 and failed

00:43:32.780 and let me

00:43:34.260 say this about

00:43:35.040 myself.

00:43:36.040 I tried

00:43:36.720 failed to

00:43:38.680 make it more

00:43:39.120 about how we

00:43:39.720 think about

00:43:40.200 things.

00:43:41.300 But I guess

00:43:41.760 you know that's

00:43:42.980 just too hard

00:43:43.700 to you can't

00:43:45.120 thread that

00:43:45.580 needle.

00:43:46.840 You know it

00:43:47.140 doesn't work

00:43:47.780 for everybody.

00:43:48.780 It worked for

00:43:49.200 some of you

00:43:49.620 and I think

00:43:49.960 for the people

00:43:50.400 and locals

00:43:50.860 it worked

00:43:51.220 better.

00:43:52.120 But it's a

00:43:53.560 hard general

00:43:54.300 message to

00:43:54.920 do.

00:43:56.260 So my

00:43:56.680 audience is

00:43:57.160 down 25

00:43:57.680 or 30

00:43:58.140 percent.

00:43:59.100 And here's

00:43:59.660 one of the

00:44:00.060 things I

00:44:00.480 ask.

00:44:01.860 Is that

00:44:02.200 organic?

00:44:05.880 Now if I

00:44:07.140 had to bet

00:44:07.680 on it I'd

00:44:08.200 say yes.

00:44:10.000 Yeah my

00:44:10.440 bet would be

00:44:10.940 yes.

00:44:11.840 But in the

00:44:12.420 context of

00:44:13.140 seeing what's

00:44:13.640 happening to

00:44:14.100 Joe Rogan

00:44:14.660 and then if

00:44:16.200 you rewind

00:44:17.080 the tape

00:44:17.520 back to

00:44:18.020 2016

00:44:18.800 there was

00:44:20.620 something that

00:44:21.200 Trump required

00:44:22.060 in order for

00:44:23.200 him to win

00:44:23.660 that first

00:44:24.100 election that

00:44:25.480 I provided

00:44:26.260 and nobody

00:44:27.860 else did.

00:44:29.540 There was a

00:44:30.360 key to his

00:44:30.900 victory and

00:44:31.660 I don't think

00:44:32.640 history will

00:44:33.180 ever record

00:44:33.760 this but it's

00:44:34.720 easy to check.

00:44:36.000 I mean you

00:44:36.240 can go back

00:44:36.760 and check it

00:44:37.200 yourself.

00:44:37.800 It's very

00:44:38.120 easy to check.

00:44:39.620 That until

00:44:40.220 somebody reframed

00:44:41.860 him as a

00:44:43.540 persuader he

00:44:45.220 was just a

00:44:45.780 liar.

00:44:47.080 Am I right?

00:44:47.600 He was just

00:44:48.600 a liar and

00:44:49.140 a con

00:44:49.440 man.

00:44:50.400 But until

00:44:50.980 somebody could

00:44:51.580 explain everything

00:44:52.440 that you saw

00:44:53.180 in a different

00:44:53.900 frame which

00:44:55.080 was oh this

00:44:55.740 is 3D chess

00:44:57.380 and then that

00:44:59.340 phrase oh it's

00:45:00.100 4D chess oh he's

00:45:01.340 not playing 27D

00:45:02.600 chess and then

00:45:03.760 everybody started

00:45:04.440 talking about was

00:45:06.120 he or was he not

00:45:07.160 doing it

00:45:07.600 intentionally.

00:45:09.820 Now that

00:45:10.520 started with a

00:45:11.460 blog post called

00:45:12.160 clown genius and I

00:45:13.840 redefined him from

00:45:14.780 a clown to yes

00:45:16.720 he's a clown but

00:45:17.680 he's a clown genius.

00:45:19.440 He's doing the

00:45:19.980 clowning for a

00:45:21.080 fact and it's

00:45:21.680 working and it

00:45:22.360 will work.

00:45:24.440 I think that

00:45:25.380 without that

00:45:26.000 reframe and if

00:45:28.360 anybody says that

00:45:29.100 didn't come from

00:45:29.780 me just Google it

00:45:31.400 yourself.

00:45:31.980 You can find out.

00:45:34.100 I don't think he

00:45:34.960 would have won.

00:45:36.320 And I think that

00:45:37.340 there might be you

00:45:38.420 know half a dozen

00:45:39.120 voices who could say

00:45:40.140 something similar

00:45:40.900 that they added

00:45:42.360 something to the

00:45:43.060 process that was

00:45:43.820 somewhat necessary.

00:45:45.540 You know there

00:45:45.800 were a lot of big

00:45:46.440 accounts you know

00:45:47.040 the Mike Cernovich

00:45:47.860 big account made a

00:45:49.140 difference.

00:45:49.960 You know you could

00:45:50.320 list a dozen other

00:45:52.300 people who just had

00:45:53.420 big accounts and made

00:45:54.560 a difference.

00:45:57.260 Somebody says

00:45:57.940 narcissist.

00:45:59.480 Jessica.

00:46:00.640 Jessica you don't

00:46:01.540 want the Shelley

00:46:02.160 treatment do you?

00:46:04.120 There's somebody here

00:46:05.000 who wants to get

00:46:05.580 Shelley'd.

00:46:08.120 You're probably new.

00:46:09.680 You're either new or

00:46:10.560 you're such a good

00:46:11.200 troll that you know

00:46:12.860 what to say to try

00:46:14.080 to get me to

00:46:14.760 divert to you.

00:46:18.180 All right.

00:46:19.040 So the point is

00:46:20.180 if you were trying

00:46:21.540 to lay down

00:46:22.620 suppressive fire

00:46:23.560 to keep Trump

00:46:25.000 from running for

00:46:25.700 office and winning

00:46:26.440 would you start

00:46:28.160 now to try to

00:46:29.580 delegitimize and

00:46:30.880 deplatform anybody

00:46:32.520 whose voice would

00:46:34.780 be you know part

00:46:35.900 of that tapestry?

00:46:38.000 Yes.

00:46:39.180 Now if the whole

00:46:40.360 thing that I read

00:46:41.160 from Wokel's

00:46:42.580 thread if that

00:46:45.580 way of working

00:46:46.580 is a common

00:46:47.520 way that things

00:46:48.540 happen and I

00:46:49.380 think that it is

00:46:50.140 it rings true to

00:46:51.580 me.

00:46:51.980 You know I've

00:46:52.240 seen enough

00:46:53.000 I've seen enough

00:46:54.480 things you know

00:46:55.380 personally and in

00:46:56.340 the news that says

00:46:57.260 yeah that's that

00:46:58.160 looks like a thing.

00:47:00.540 Am I already

00:47:01.540 being attacked

00:47:02.280 and if and if

00:47:04.120 this drop isn't

00:47:04.860 organic is there

00:47:06.340 an attack to come?

00:47:07.340 Because I would

00:47:08.420 expect that anybody

00:47:09.260 in the top I don't

00:47:10.440 know 20 or so

00:47:12.300 influential voices

00:47:13.560 and influential

00:47:14.660 would be anything

00:47:15.460 from a big

00:47:16.080 platform like

00:47:17.660 Tucker Carlson

00:47:19.020 look how much

00:47:20.500 Tucker Carlson

00:47:21.180 gets attacked

00:47:21.740 right?

00:47:22.340 How much of that

00:47:22.940 is just softening

00:47:24.280 up the room for

00:47:26.800 the elections?

00:47:27.920 Probably a lot.

00:47:29.260 Probably a lot.

00:47:32.680 So I told you

00:47:34.260 that I was

00:47:34.780 expecting that I

00:47:35.740 would get one of

00:47:36.360 these like the

00:47:37.760 lower class version

00:47:39.200 of the Joe Rogan

00:47:40.020 treatment and I'm

00:47:42.040 wondering if it's

00:47:42.640 already happened.

00:47:45.200 Let me ask you

00:47:46.040 this.

00:47:47.400 Most of my

00:47:48.180 audience dropped

00:47:48.860 off if I base it

00:47:50.400 on the feedback.

00:47:52.780 There were a number

00:47:53.500 of people who just

00:47:54.060 dropped off because

00:47:54.820 it was too much

00:47:55.480 vaccine talk and

00:47:56.920 that was organic.

00:47:58.520 But there were a

00:47:59.220 number of people

00:47:59.780 who were convinced

00:48:00.800 that I was one of

00:48:02.320 the primary pushers

00:48:03.600 of vaccinations.

00:48:04.340 And where did

00:48:06.000 that come from?

00:48:08.100 And it came from

00:48:09.040 one tweet which

00:48:11.120 was widely

00:48:11.700 misinterpreted but

00:48:14.620 totally my own

00:48:15.420 fault.

00:48:17.180 And I'll give it to

00:48:18.060 you graphically.

00:48:18.820 Here's the mistake I

00:48:19.880 made.

00:48:20.300 Now let me give you

00:48:20.860 some context.

00:48:21.960 If somebody says

00:48:22.920 something and 99

00:48:23.960 people understand it

00:48:25.120 and one does not

00:48:26.500 understand it, it's

00:48:28.220 fair to assume that

00:48:29.020 the problem is with

00:48:29.840 one person and

00:48:31.720 that if 99 people

00:48:32.840 understood it, then

00:48:33.900 the person who said

00:48:34.600 it did a good job.

00:48:36.100 But if something like

00:48:37.180 80% of the people who

00:48:38.300 see it don't understand

00:48:39.260 it or don't understand

00:48:40.420 it the way you meant

00:48:41.040 it, then clearly, by

00:48:43.900 definition, that's the

00:48:45.940 problem of the speaker.

00:48:48.460 Right?

00:48:49.040 So given the number

00:48:51.580 of people who

00:48:52.320 misinterpreted a tweet

00:48:53.600 I did in 2021,

00:48:55.320 clearly my fault.

00:48:56.540 But was that mistake

00:49:00.380 big enough to cause

00:49:03.220 the reaction that it

00:49:04.320 got?

00:49:05.220 Because it was a

00:49:06.060 tiny mistake.

00:49:07.600 But the reaction was

00:49:08.800 really big.

00:49:10.100 So I'll show you the

00:49:10.800 mistake and I'm not

00:49:11.720 softening it.

00:49:13.020 Clear mistake.

00:49:14.360 All right?

00:49:15.240 So nothing I'll say

00:49:16.660 next is a hedge toward

00:49:18.920 the fact that, oh,

00:49:19.700 this was just a mistake.

00:49:21.120 But it was a small one.

00:49:23.920 And I wonder if there

00:49:25.100 was anything behind the

00:49:26.060 fact that it turned

00:49:26.740 into a big impact.

00:49:28.420 Here was the mistake.

00:49:29.380 I said that once I got

00:49:30.320 vaccinated personally

00:49:31.420 in 2021, that from my

00:49:34.060 personal perspective,

00:49:36.200 as a person who is

00:49:37.620 pro-vax only for myself,

00:49:40.160 I never told anybody

00:49:41.480 else to get vaxed.

00:49:43.320 And you can fact check

00:49:44.660 that.

00:49:46.640 Because I'm not a doctor

00:49:47.900 and you all have

00:49:49.080 different risk stuff,

00:49:50.800 right?

00:49:51.080 So I never said

00:49:51.820 anything about you.

00:49:53.140 I just said that in my

00:49:54.180 specific case, all

00:49:55.880 things included, I

00:49:56.940 took a guess, and it

00:49:58.620 was a guess.

00:49:59.700 That was my guess.

00:50:01.060 So the moment I got it,

00:50:02.400 I had this weird

00:50:03.140 psychological effect,

00:50:05.300 which is that, and

00:50:06.180 here's the part that I

00:50:07.020 got wrong.

00:50:07.820 Here was my mistake.

00:50:10.140 I didn't say from my

00:50:11.540 perspective.

00:50:14.020 I implied it, but not

00:50:16.000 well enough.

00:50:17.200 From my perspective,

00:50:18.340 the moment I got my

00:50:19.920 second shot, I never

00:50:22.560 again thought about the

00:50:23.620 risk to myself.

00:50:26.580 That was just my

00:50:27.580 personal perspective.

00:50:29.100 From that moment on, I

00:50:30.320 worried about the

00:50:30.980 mandates.

00:50:34.260 Only.

00:50:35.060 I worried about the

00:50:35.780 mandates.

00:50:37.040 And the economy and

00:50:38.740 stuff.

00:50:39.580 So from this moment, I

00:50:41.500 was done.

00:50:42.240 But here's the thing

00:50:43.580 that people jumped on.

00:50:44.520 They said, what about

00:50:45.640 us?

00:50:45.960 What about us?

00:50:47.000 For us, it was always

00:50:48.040 done.

00:50:49.220 Scott, Scott, it's

00:50:51.660 always been done for

00:50:52.420 us.

00:50:52.760 In fact, we don't even

00:50:53.600 think it ever started

00:50:54.480 in some cases.

00:50:57.460 So I'm not, nothing I

00:50:59.860 said should discount

00:51:00.840 this point of view.

00:51:02.520 Again, that was my

00:51:03.600 mistake, not your

00:51:04.280 mistake.

00:51:05.380 So I should have

00:51:06.380 maybe, you know, just

00:51:08.960 acknowledged there was

00:51:09.700 another point of view.

00:51:10.560 And that would have

00:51:10.880 been a little bit more

00:51:11.820 clear that it was just a

00:51:12.880 perspective.

00:51:13.820 So I'm not saying any of

00:51:14.920 this is true.

00:51:15.380 I'm saying that from a

00:51:16.560 mental perspective, the

00:51:18.380 moment I got the second

00:51:19.300 vaccination, I never

00:51:20.960 again thought I was in a

00:51:22.120 pandemic.

00:51:22.920 I thought I was in a

00:51:24.380 oppressive environment.

00:51:27.040 And then people said to

00:51:28.200 me, oh, you've changed,

00:51:29.460 blah, blah, blah.

00:51:29.960 Anyway, so I have no

00:51:33.260 direct evidence that I

00:51:35.820 was the subject of any

00:51:36.900 kind of organized attack.

00:51:39.620 However, I do expect

00:51:42.220 one.

00:51:43.320 If that wasn't it, I

00:51:44.680 would expect one.

00:51:45.380 Here's another weird

00:51:49.640 statistical thing, and

00:51:51.680 I'm not sure what to

00:51:52.380 think about it, but

00:51:53.940 there was this other

00:51:54.840 study, or a latest

00:51:56.660 study at the Bar

00:51:57.720 Alon University in

00:52:00.020 Israel.

00:52:01.100 It shows that vitamin

00:52:02.540 D might be perfectly

00:52:04.740 able to predict your

00:52:06.280 outcomes along with

00:52:08.580 age.

00:52:09.680 So this article about

00:52:11.480 this new study suggests

00:52:12.880 that the

00:52:14.260 your odds of having a bad

00:52:16.680 outcome are 14 times

00:52:18.320 higher if you have low

00:52:21.100 vitamin D, 14 times.

00:52:23.600 And then you add on age as

00:52:25.780 a predictor, and you'd have

00:52:27.380 two good predictors.

00:52:29.260 Now, Andres Beckhaus has

00:52:32.840 poured some water on this,

00:52:34.640 risk, and so I always take

00:52:36.580 him seriously.

00:52:37.740 And he pointed out that the

00:52:39.180 14 times more likely actually

00:52:41.340 had a range from, you know,

00:52:43.300 4 to 50 or something.

00:52:45.200 So it was like gigantic

00:52:46.180 range, but in all cases, it

00:52:48.800 was a serious multiple, right?

00:52:51.980 Even at the lowest, it was 4

00:52:53.980 times bigger risk.

00:52:55.940 That seems big enough to be

00:52:57.700 meaningful, right?

00:52:58.640 If it was 50 times more, I doubt

00:53:00.500 it.

00:53:01.220 But, you know, somewhere in the

00:53:02.120 middle, but it doesn't matter

00:53:03.320 where it is in that range, it

00:53:05.280 would still be the same

00:53:06.200 conclusion that it would help

00:53:07.660 you predict.

00:53:09.160 And given that they've done

00:53:10.560 retrospective studies, and it

00:53:12.160 did predict, it's probably, you

00:53:16.000 know, it's short of being

00:53:17.660 proven.

00:53:19.300 And let me clarify, I'm not

00:53:20.760 saying that adding vitamin D

00:53:22.180 would help anybody.

00:53:23.900 Let me say this clearly.

00:53:25.200 We're only talking about its

00:53:26.420 ability to predict if you're

00:53:28.660 somebody who's going to get in

00:53:29.640 trouble.

00:53:29.860 A separate question, which is

00:53:32.240 definitely not proven, as far as

00:53:34.880 I know, I don't think it's

00:53:36.580 proven.

00:53:37.600 I don't think I've seen proof that

00:53:39.640 immediately adding vitamin D once

00:53:41.560 you get in the hospital is

00:53:43.160 necessarily going to cure you.

00:53:45.520 Like that, that's a different

00:53:46.460 subject.

00:53:47.240 But the question is, does it

00:53:48.360 predict that you're overweight?

00:53:51.180 And it does.

00:53:52.280 Because people who are overweight

00:53:53.360 have lower vitamin D on average.

00:53:55.220 So does it predict that you have,

00:53:57.140 I don't know, cancer?

00:53:57.860 Or something.

00:54:00.080 I think it predicts a whole

00:54:01.020 bunch of general low health

00:54:03.080 things.

00:54:04.200 So as a proxy to determine

00:54:05.920 whether you should hide until

00:54:08.300 the virus is over, or you should

00:54:10.840 just live your life, it would be a

00:54:12.680 pretty good risk management factor.

00:54:16.740 So Andres has some questions about

00:54:18.380 the value of it, and you should

00:54:21.400 take him seriously.

00:54:22.200 But I think that there's no

00:54:25.220 question that people with high

00:54:26.660 vitamin D have better immune

00:54:28.580 systems, right?

00:54:31.000 Am I wrong about that?

00:54:33.600 That if your immune system has good

00:54:36.380 vitamin D, you're almost always going

00:54:38.320 to have a better outcome against

00:54:40.100 just about everything?

00:54:42.280 I don't know.

00:54:43.340 So to me, I don't know why this is

00:54:45.400 controversial.

00:54:45.940 And as some of you have been nice

00:54:49.160 enough to point out, I probably

00:54:52.120 was one of the earliest people to

00:54:53.840 say at the very beginning of the

00:54:55.160 pandemic, hey, there seems to be some

00:54:57.400 weird correlation here that's vitamin

00:54:59.760 D related.

00:55:01.480 And so far, looks like there might be.

00:55:05.480 Not causation.

00:55:07.000 Not causation.

00:55:08.320 That has not been demonstrated.

00:55:09.520 All right, so in theory, and this

00:55:17.600 is not confirmed, but I did see a

00:55:19.320 report that California even is going

00:55:21.660 to drop coronavirus restrictions on

00:55:24.020 February 15th, meaning that the

00:55:26.980 temporary rules are going to time

00:55:30.220 out.

00:55:31.840 Can I get a confirmation on that?

00:55:35.080 That even in California, unless they

00:55:37.420 renew it, which could happen,

00:55:39.520 that it times out on February 15th?

00:55:43.620 I don't see any way that the

00:55:45.460 governor could politically extend

00:55:47.460 it.

00:55:48.420 I think the fact that we caught him

00:55:50.740 without his mask, at least the masks

00:55:54.440 are going to have to go away in nine

00:55:55.720 days.

00:55:57.020 But yesterday I went to Safeway

00:55:59.780 without my mask.

00:56:00.880 I was the only person not wearing a

00:56:02.200 mask in Safeway, big grocery store

00:56:04.320 locally.

00:56:05.180 And nobody asked me to put on my mask.

00:56:11.680 Now, have things changed or is it

00:56:15.900 something about me?

00:56:17.760 And I guess I would ask this question

00:56:19.460 of you, because you know how you can't

00:56:21.780 really see yourself the way anybody sees

00:56:23.660 you?

00:56:23.840 I've been told that I look dangerous.

00:56:29.480 Not dangerous in the I will kill you kind

00:56:31.580 of dangerous, but dangerous in the kind

00:56:34.100 in the way that I can make trouble for

00:56:36.120 you.

00:56:36.960 Like I can make your day unpleasant.

00:56:39.720 Is that true?

00:56:40.480 Does anybody get that vibe from me?

00:56:47.840 Somebody says you scare the hell out of

00:56:49.500 me.

00:56:50.140 So I'm getting mixed messages.

00:56:52.720 Mostly no.

00:56:55.260 Some are saying definitely yes.

00:56:59.520 You look too short to be dangerous.

00:57:02.060 But remember, in this context, I don't

00:57:03.680 mean dangerous physically.

00:57:06.820 Interesting.

00:57:07.320 Well, because I would have said no.

00:57:12.260 Like my self-image is that I don't seem

00:57:15.300 dangerous in any sense.

00:57:17.500 But other people have said that.

00:57:26.240 Interesting.

00:57:27.620 All right.

00:57:29.260 But here is my funny observation about

00:57:31.540 Safeway.

00:57:32.340 In my state, in California, you've seen

00:57:34.460 all these videos of people shoplifting

00:57:36.340 with impunity.

00:57:37.840 You'll see a video of somebody filling

00:57:39.500 up a big bag and then just walking

00:57:41.560 out because there's no penalty for

00:57:43.880 shoplifting.

00:57:44.940 So the store isn't going to chase you

00:57:46.880 because they don't want to get hurt.

00:57:49.560 And, you know, it's not going to work

00:57:50.740 anyway.

00:57:52.480 And they can't call the cops because

00:57:54.320 the cops don't care.

00:57:56.480 So the same store that you're wondering

00:57:59.420 if they're going to make you wear a

00:58:00.760 mask if you're an adult.

00:58:02.560 By the way, I think kids might get asked

00:58:04.600 to put on a mask.

00:58:05.320 I don't know.

00:58:06.520 But here's what I was going to say

00:58:10.500 if somebody asked me to put on a mask,

00:58:12.120 if it was a manager, not if it was an

00:58:13.940 employee or not if it was another

00:58:17.040 customer.

00:58:17.860 But if somebody who worked for the store

00:58:19.700 asked me to put on my mask,

00:58:22.920 I was going to say, you do understand

00:58:24.860 that even shoplifting is not...

00:58:29.320 you don't even enforce shoplifting.

00:58:33.080 And the employee would have to stand there

00:58:36.020 and say, well, okay, that's true.

00:58:38.200 So I would say, let me get this straight.

00:58:41.000 I could fill a pillowcase with goods

00:58:43.900 and walk out of the store and you wouldn't

00:58:45.540 say a peep.

00:58:46.500 Am I right?

00:58:47.100 Well, that's true.

00:58:49.880 But you do need me to put a mask on nine days

00:58:52.440 before it's going to be dropped for obvious reasons.

00:58:56.480 I mean, who wants to have that conversation with me?

00:58:59.280 Who wants to waste their time

00:59:02.960 having that conversation with me

00:59:05.060 when nothing can be gained by it?

00:59:07.420 So I think we've just reached the point

00:59:09.140 where people maybe think about asking me,

00:59:12.700 but they know it's not going to go well.

00:59:15.600 Don't you think?

00:59:16.660 It's not so much that they're afraid of me

00:59:18.360 in any real sense, I don't think.

00:59:20.540 But I think they just know the conversation

00:59:22.140 won't go the way they hope it will go.

00:59:24.680 That they look at me and they say,

00:59:26.360 that's not somebody who's going to put his mask on

00:59:28.400 just because I asked him to.

00:59:31.380 So it might be that.

00:59:33.140 I think it's the look on my face

00:59:35.060 that I'm not going to put it on

00:59:36.880 just because you asked me to.

00:59:39.720 That might not be the only reason.

00:59:43.740 On Twitter, I tweeted this.

00:59:46.040 And somebody chimed in in the comments

00:59:48.640 and said, you know, you're bluffing.

00:59:53.620 You wouldn't actually shoplift

00:59:55.400 right in front of the employee

00:59:57.320 just because they made you wear a mask.

01:00:00.300 And I thought to myself,

01:00:01.480 oh, you don't know me at all.

01:00:05.080 If you don't think I would literally shoplift

01:00:08.120 just to make a point,

01:00:10.300 you don't know me at all.

01:00:11.520 We have never met.

01:00:13.500 I would totally shoplift just to make a point,

01:00:19.140 especially if it was on video.

01:00:21.700 If you could videotape me breaking the law

01:00:24.720 just to make a point,

01:00:27.260 even better.

01:00:30.260 Let's let that thing go,

01:00:31.680 let it go viral.

01:00:33.720 Anybody who thinks I don't like attention enough

01:00:36.140 to break a ridiculous law

01:00:37.880 just to make a point?

01:00:40.120 You really don't know me at all.

01:00:42.860 Yeah, I would probably stream it.

01:00:46.040 Anyway, I thought it was funny

01:00:47.520 that somebody could misinterpret

01:00:49.660 my basic character that grossly.

01:00:53.560 All right.

01:00:56.180 There we have it.

01:00:57.980 So the question is,

01:00:59.580 can we learn to identify

01:01:01.400 when professionals are taking somebody down?

01:01:05.760 And do we see it in the Joe Rogan situation?

01:01:08.980 I can only tell you that the people

01:01:10.660 who are good at seeing it

01:01:12.080 think they see it,

01:01:14.940 which is different from meaning it's true.

01:01:17.720 And in my case,

01:01:20.700 I just used my case as an example,

01:01:22.500 I would say I don't see it.

01:01:25.540 Would you agree?

01:01:27.260 I would say in the Joe Rogan situation,

01:01:29.460 it does look like there's something fishy going on.

01:01:32.680 But in my case,

01:01:33.540 I would say there's no signal for that.

01:01:35.540 It's just something I'm alerted to

01:01:37.260 in case there ever is a signal.

01:01:39.000 Would you all agree

01:01:39.760 that in my case there's no...

01:01:41.900 I wouldn't say there's any direct evidence of that.

01:01:46.100 Yeah.

01:01:46.320 So don't take any speculation beyond speculation.

01:01:50.820 There's no direct evidence of that.

01:01:53.460 All right.

01:01:54.040 This.

01:01:56.420 Disagree.

01:01:59.240 I mean, I could easily be next,

01:02:02.820 but that might also be me thinking too much myself.

01:02:08.040 Which is?

01:02:09.960 It's adenoidal and weak.

01:02:12.080 I don't know what that means.

01:02:16.320 All right.

01:02:18.560 I need to go.

01:02:19.980 And I will talk to you.

01:02:22.380 Oh, my God.

01:02:23.020 I just saw a question here.

01:02:25.140 Locals.

01:02:25.740 The question was,

01:02:26.580 should Joe Rogan interview Trump

01:02:29.360 if Trump decides to run?

01:02:32.040 Yes.

01:02:34.220 Yes.

01:02:37.100 Yes.

01:02:39.960 It would probably ruin his business.

01:02:43.000 So maybe it would be a bad idea.

01:02:45.460 But if he wants to make a point about free speech,

01:02:48.140 he should invite both Biden and...

01:02:50.080 Well, okay.

01:02:50.960 Or whoever he's running against.

01:02:52.660 Okay.

01:02:52.960 That's the way to do it.

01:02:54.380 He should put out two invitations.

01:02:56.180 And optionally, you know, again, I'm not going to...

01:03:01.960 Let's have some humility.

01:03:03.720 Let us not, as I've done before,

01:03:06.100 and I think I have to correct myself on this.

01:03:08.680 I think I need some humility about anything

01:03:10.560 that I suggest that Joe Rogan do in his own domain.

01:03:14.160 But one way to go would be to say,

01:03:16.740 I'm inviting all of the candidates

01:03:20.060 so you see both sides.

01:03:23.780 Or just whoever says yes.

01:03:27.980 Or whoever says yes.

01:03:29.900 He does have the clout that he could do both.

01:03:33.800 He could just do back-to-back.

01:03:37.420 Somebody says Rogan isn't a Trump fan.

01:03:41.140 Perfect.

01:03:42.800 Perfect.

01:03:44.580 And that's why you want to watch him, right?

01:03:47.200 The reason you watch Joe Rogan

01:03:48.780 is that you believe what he says is true.

01:03:51.300 You know, what's the interesting thing

01:03:52.440 about both of Rogan's, let's say, apologies,

01:03:55.100 if you want to call it that,

01:03:56.200 both of his videos sort of explaining his situation,

01:03:59.340 is that you believe them.

01:04:02.380 Think about how weird that is.

01:04:04.320 Now, you might have criticized, you know,

01:04:06.440 the form of them or the timing

01:04:08.540 or whether people should apologize.

01:04:10.920 Those are different questions.

01:04:12.340 But was there ever even one moment

01:04:14.480 in either of those videos

01:04:17.220 where you thought he wasn't talking

01:04:19.680 from his actual honest opinion?

01:04:22.880 And the answer is no.

01:04:25.440 Think about anybody else who could do that.

01:04:29.300 Who else could pull that off?

01:04:31.680 Seriously.

01:04:32.880 Who else could pull off both of those videos

01:04:36.060 and nobody, even his,

01:04:37.960 I don't even think his biggest critics

01:04:39.960 said it was not sincere.

01:04:43.980 If you can't even get your critics

01:04:45.680 to say you're lying,

01:04:47.660 you're doing something right.

01:04:49.640 And on that note,

01:04:51.480 we will talk to you tomorrow.

01:04:54.160 And have I mentioned

01:04:55.160 how good-looking you are

01:04:57.360 and how bright

01:04:59.220 and caring?

01:05:02.740 See you tomorrow.

01:05:03.460 See you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - February 06, 2022

Episode 1646 Scott Adams： Fake News, Fake Statistics, Fake Data, and Real Delicious Coffee. Come and Get Some

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript