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, 0.55

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 0.74

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 0.95

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 0.99

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 0.88

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 0.97

00:31:53.580 Distance.

00:31:55.180 W-O-K-A-L 1.00

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 1.00

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 0.73

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 0.94

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 0.99

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. 0.68

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 1.00

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. 0.78

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 0.85

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, 0.62

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

Summary

Transcript