Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1935 Scott Adams： Hilarious News. I'll Teach You How To Make A 3-D Printer Out Of Cow Manure

00:00:01.000 Welcome to the highlight of civilization.

00:00:04.200 It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and there is no finer thing that has ever happened in

00:00:09.400 the history of humankind and before.

00:00:13.040 In fact, many of the animals had no sipping from coffee cups whatsoever, so we can feel

00:00:19.520 sorry for them.

00:00:20.880 But let's not bring that downer into our thinking.

00:00:23.800 Instead, let's raise it up, because the news is funny and fun today.

00:00:27.280 Well, most of it.

00:00:28.480 We're going to ignore the bad stuff.

00:00:30.440 But if you'd like to take it up for an experience that might be the peak experience of your entire

00:00:36.920 life, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or a chalice or stand, a canteen jug

00:00:42.320 or a flask of a vessel of any cayenne, fill it with your favorite liquid, I like coffee.

00:00:49.100 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day, the thing that

00:00:53.800 makes everything better.

00:00:55.800 Everything.

00:00:56.800 It's called The Simultaneous Sip.

00:00:58.760 It's called The Simultaneous Sip.

00:00:59.760 Go.

00:01:08.760 Yeah.

00:01:09.760 Yeah.

00:01:10.760 That was good.

00:01:11.760 Well, the most important story today is that some folks in India have figured out how to

00:01:19.080 use cow dung to make plaster and bricks.

00:01:25.720 And if you say to yourself, well, that doesn't sound like a good idea, I don't want my house

00:01:31.120 made of cow dung, you would be wrong.

00:01:33.100 Because it turns out that if you mix it with some ordinary materials, not only does it become

00:01:38.540 solid and good for building, and has been used for, I guess it's been used for many years

00:01:44.280 in some parts of the world.

00:01:46.100 But better than that, apparently it's a superior insulation.

00:01:51.060 You can actually lower the indoor temperature by 7 degrees just by using these cow dung bricks.

00:01:57.060 Pretty good, right?

00:01:58.060 Now, have you ever seen a 3D printer that builds houses?

00:02:03.020 Have you ever seen a video of that?

00:02:06.020 They'll bring in usually like a big platform that they put, you know, around where the house

00:02:11.020 will be.

00:02:12.020 And then the 3D printer moves along the, you know, the arms and it just builds the walls

00:02:17.380 up as you go.

00:02:19.020 And I'm thinking this might be an opportunity to build a 3D printer and a cow's.

00:02:24.060 So what you do is you'd strap a feed bag to the cow's, you know, mouth, and then you would

00:02:31.600 lift the cow up on some kind of a, you know, support thing, and you would just hover it over

00:02:36.900 the part of the wall where you want to, you know, build the next part of the wall.

00:02:40.660 And the cow would just, you know, eat and then it'll do its business.

00:02:44.820 But you gotta have it lined up just right so that the cow dung comes right into a little

00:02:49.640 form that would form a brick and then I guess you'd probably tamp it down a little bit.

00:02:54.220 But I think you could actually build a 3D printer out of a cow.

00:02:59.340 It wouldn't be fast, but it would get the job done.

00:03:03.660 Just the sort of thing you need for a third world country.

00:03:06.540 Cowshit 3D printer.

00:03:08.900 Yeah, you want one.

00:03:09.900 I know you want one.

00:03:11.900 Well, speaking of cowshit, let's talk about Adam Schiff.

00:03:18.080 Now, I just want to put a mental picture, can we do a little mental, little mental activity

00:03:23.960 here?

00:03:24.960 We're going to do a little mental exercise.

00:03:25.960 I want you all to play along.

00:03:28.380 I'm going to give you two images, imagine the two images separately, and then I'm going

00:03:33.780 to ask you to, in your mind, merge the two images, you know, like if you were cross-eyed.

00:03:38.920 They'll be two separate images, and then I'm going to ask you to bring them together in

00:03:42.980 your mind.

00:03:43.980 All right.

00:03:44.980 The first one is a full moon.

00:03:47.100 Just get a picture of the moon with all of this, you know, crevices and craters and stuff.

00:03:51.980 A really good moon picture.

00:03:53.980 Now, separately, separately, split screen your brain, and over on the right, imagine your

00:04:00.100 dog's ass, but you're looking at it from, like, ass level, you know, directly from the

00:04:06.340 back.

00:04:07.340 So now, now imagine the dog's ass on one side, now imagine the moon on the other side.

00:04:13.340 Now, in your mind, merge the moon and the dog's ass, and what does it look like?

00:04:21.500 Adam Schiff.

00:04:22.500 Adam Schiff.

00:04:23.500 Yeah.

00:04:24.500 If you merge a moon and a dog's ass, take a look at Adam Schiff.

00:04:32.500 Yeah.

00:04:33.500 It's not funny now, but wait until you look at him.

00:04:36.500 The next time you see Adam Schiff, ask yourself if he doesn't look like the combination of a

00:04:41.500 moon and a dog's ass.

00:04:43.500 He does.

00:04:44.500 I'm just saying.

00:04:45.500 Which is not deeply important, to my point, but I thought it was necessary.

00:04:53.500 So it turns out that McCarthy, now that he's the Speaker of the House, or will be, he's

00:04:58.500 going to remove from committees Adam Schiff and Swalwell and Omar.

00:05:04.500 So Omar is getting kicked for being anti-Semitic, says McCarthy.

00:05:11.500 And Schiff is being removed for being a confirmed liar.

00:05:16.500 And it's funny, because I think it is confirmed.

00:05:20.500 Because he said some things in public, and then when he was put under oath, according to

00:05:25.500 McCarthy, when he was put under oath, he said, no, no, I didn't see any evidence in that

00:05:30.500 Schiff at all.

00:05:33.500 Or something like that.

00:05:34.500 And then Swalwell, I think McCarthy's point, which is clever, if he, Swalwell would not

00:05:40.500 be able to get security clearance in the private sector, because of his, you know, his association

00:05:47.500 with a Chinese spy.

00:05:49.500 So the private sector wouldn't be able to even give him security clearance.

00:05:54.500 So McCarthy says, if the private sector wouldn't give him security clearance, why is the government

00:06:01.500 doing it?

00:06:04.500 Now, remember this point.

00:06:07.500 When we get to a story I'm going to talk about with Brett Weinstein.

00:06:14.500 All right.

00:06:15.500 Now, doesn't it seem to you as if giving security clearance to Swalwell sounds exactly like the

00:06:24.500 opposite of what you would do if you were trying to do a good job for your country?

00:06:29.500 Doesn't it?

00:06:30.500 It sounds like, why would you even consider that?

00:06:34.500 Like, that's not even in the top of a thousand things you would do if you actually wanted to

00:06:39.500 protect your country.

00:06:41.500 So it looks like a little bit like opposite of what would be smart, right?

00:06:46.500 Just remember, this is one example of something that looks, that just looks opposite of what's

00:06:52.500 smart.

00:06:53.500 And maybe there's a reason for that.

00:06:55.500 We'll talk about that a little bit.

00:06:57.500 All right.

00:06:58.500 So I'm fully in favor of removing these folks from the committees.

00:07:03.500 I guess that's what happens when you're in power.

00:07:05.500 You get to do that.

00:07:07.500 And I think the reasons stated are completely solid.

00:07:13.500 Would you agree?

00:07:15.500 Because I wouldn't necessarily be on board with this if you were making up reasons, right?

00:07:22.500 If the only argument was, we don't want these darn Democrats on our committee, then I'd

00:07:28.500 say, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not how this works.

00:07:31.500 You probably should have a Democrat on your committee.

00:07:34.500 But the problem with these characters is not that they're too Democrat.

00:07:40.500 They did some pretty specific things that, you know, you should consider them for being

00:07:47.500 disqualified.

00:07:48.500 So good job for McCarthy on taking care of that, you know, directly and not messing around

00:07:53.500 with that.

00:07:55.500 Another favorite story, apparently a prankster pretended to be Francis Macron, the head of

00:08:03.500 France.

00:08:04.500 And he actually got a phone call through to the head of Poland.

00:08:08.500 And he had a long conversation with him pretending to be the president of France.

00:08:18.500 Now, the actual conversation is not terribly important.

00:08:22.500 Like they were talking about, you know, whether he wanted war with Russia and stuff.

00:08:27.500 So it was kind of ridiculous conversation.

00:08:30.500 But here's the best part of the story.

00:08:34.500 How do you get through to the president of Poland?

00:08:38.500 How do you do that?

00:08:40.500 Don't you want to know how he pulled that off?

00:08:43.500 Can anybody do that?

00:08:45.500 Could I place a call from my own phone?

00:08:51.500 Maybe it was a, I don't know, was it a block number or a private number or something?

00:08:55.500 So maybe he called into the switchboard, probably called into the switchboard and said, hello,

00:09:00.500 I am President Macron.

00:09:03.500 Can you forward me to the president of Poland?

00:09:06.500 And then, like, somebody forwarded him to the president.

00:09:09.500 Like, how exactly did that happen?

00:09:12.500 Don't you feel like you need a little extra information on this story?

00:09:16.500 How do you get through?

00:09:18.500 And could somebody do that to Biden?

00:09:20.500 Like, is this a Poland-specific thing?

00:09:23.500 Because why would he even think to try it?

00:09:26.500 Like, who would even think that that could work?

00:09:30.500 Like, I wouldn't even try that prank.

00:09:32.500 Yeah, I wouldn't do it anyway.

00:09:34.500 But I wouldn't think there was any chance it would work.

00:09:37.500 Now, if you said getting through to a senator or a representative, I would say, yeah, you could probably do that.

00:09:43.500 I bet you could get through to a member of Congress.

00:09:46.500 But the president?

00:09:48.500 The sitting president?

00:09:49.500 You could just call the president?

00:09:51.500 What's going on here?

00:09:54.500 All right.

00:09:55.500 Well, that's hilarious, no matter what the real story is.

00:09:57.500 Here's another funny story.

00:10:03.500 And so one of the competitors to Twitter, I guess, is a site called Mastodon.

00:10:08.500 And apparently a lot of journalists and left-leaning people, you know, said, oh, we can't handle this Twitter under Elon Musk.

00:10:18.500 We're all going to escape.

00:10:19.500 We're going to go over to Mastodon.

00:10:22.500 So how do you think that's working out for them over at Mastodon?

00:10:26.500 There is a hilarious story on the Fox News site.

00:10:30.500 Now, of course, Fox, you know, likes to dunk on the left.

00:10:34.500 So there's a little bit of dunking going on.

00:10:37.500 So I'm not going to claim that this is, you know, an unbiased reporting or anything, but it is funny.

00:10:43.500 So I'm just going to tell you about it because it's funny.

00:10:45.500 All right.

00:10:46.500 This is from Fox News site.

00:10:48.500 So it says that Mastodon, it's an alternative to Twitter.

00:10:51.500 So it's where all these lefty journalists are going.

00:10:54.500 But here's here's what's happened, according to them.

00:10:56.500 As more journalists moved onto the site, however, there were more reports of blocking, attacking and outright banning of users over political issues.

00:11:05.500 So they went there and turns out every place is going to be the same.

00:11:10.500 But here's the here's the best part.

00:11:12.500 In one case, former Slate podcaster.

00:11:15.500 Now, you'd have to know Slate is very left leaning. Right.

00:11:19.500 So this is a lefty podcaster.

00:11:21.500 Mike Peska was suspended from the popular Mastodon server for a verified journalist.

00:11:30.500 There's some technical thing that you get.

00:11:34.500 Mastodon has a weird architecture.

00:11:36.500 So forget about the details.

00:11:38.500 But he got in trouble on the site and got negative consequences because he pointed to it.

00:11:44.500 He linked to a story in the New York Times.

00:11:47.500 And the New York Times story was on the negative consequences, according to the reporting of puberty blockers on children.

00:11:55.500 And although it was in the New York Times and he was a left leaning journalist pointing to a left leaning paper of record for the left.

00:12:06.500 He got in trouble from somebody who was even farther left.

00:12:10.500 Transgender blogger Parker Malloy attacked Peska and complained that the, quote, anti trans content in the New York Times was not removed from the network from Mastodon.

00:12:22.500 And then according to the New York Times, Peska was soon informed that, quote, he had been suspended for referring to Miss Malloy as a, quote, activist, which was dismissive.

00:12:34.500 He got kicked off of Mastodon for calling an activist an activist.

00:12:41.500 Oh, come on.

00:12:45.500 That's funny.

00:12:48.500 But so the left realized that if if they go someplace that is mostly just themselves, that they don't become peaceful.

00:12:57.500 They attack each other.

00:13:00.500 Do you know who knew that would happen?

00:13:03.500 Everybody on the right.

00:13:06.500 A hundred percent of people on the right know that they can't turn off the you can't turn off the victim and attack mode.

00:13:14.500 Right.

00:13:15.500 So the people on the left have an operating system that is the way you win is to frame yourself as the biggest victim.

00:13:23.500 That doesn't go away just because the Republicans are somewhere else.

00:13:27.500 You can't turn that shit off.

00:13:29.500 That they will simply go from we're victims of Republicans to, well, I guess we're victims of these guys, too.

00:13:36.500 I guess we're just victims of these these activists who are more activists than we are.

00:13:41.500 There are a little bit more left than us that are attacking us.

00:13:44.500 So maybe just maybe the people who left Twitter for Mastodon learned a valuable lesson about human nature.

00:13:54.500 It doesn't change when you change when you change platforms.

00:13:59.500 Your human nature, still the same.

00:14:02.500 So I think the left is going to need to be near Republicans.

00:14:07.500 Do you know why?

00:14:09.500 Why does the left need to be near Republicans?

00:14:14.500 Well, one, protection.

00:14:17.500 Who's going to protect them?

00:14:20.500 And two, so they have some reason to be evil and mean and victims.

00:14:25.500 And it makes more sense to them because they have an other to blame.

00:14:30.500 All right.

00:14:31.500 Stop me if you saw this coming.

00:14:34.500 Have you ever seen an example where a joke turns into reality and you watch it in slow motion as it's happening?

00:14:45.500 And you're saying, well, that's not really going to go from a joke to actually something happening in the real world.

00:14:52.500 And then slowly it does.

00:14:55.500 And the whole time you're like, well, am I really watching that?

00:14:59.500 Here's an example.

00:15:00.500 There's an article by Ross Barkin.

00:15:04.500 MSN, so MSN ran this story.

00:15:08.500 I guess it was the Intelligencer originally.

00:15:13.500 And the option is Democrats have some solid options if Biden doesn't run in 2024.

00:15:21.500 So if it's not Biden, those Democrats, they have a strong bench.

00:15:26.500 And the person who is called out as one of the strongest on the Democrat bench was John Fetterman.

00:15:33.500 John Fetterman is being talked about as your next president.

00:15:40.500 Now, that started as a joke, right?

00:15:46.500 I'm probably not the first or only person who said it as a joke, but Fetterman could beat Trump.

00:15:57.500 Fetterman could be any Republican.

00:16:00.500 Do you know why?

00:16:02.500 Because if Fetterman runs, there won't be anything to talk about on the candidate.

00:16:07.500 You'll just talk about policies.

00:16:10.500 Because they'll just say, well, he'll just rubber stamp Democrat policies.

00:16:13.500 So the Democrats say it kind of doesn't matter who it is.

00:16:17.500 You might as well have somebody who doesn't have, like, a lot of baggage except the most obvious baggage.

00:16:22.500 And apparently that didn't stop them from becoming a senator.

00:16:25.500 So if they know that that doesn't matter, just run the guy who's more like a brand ambassador.

00:16:31.500 He's not even like a politician, right?

00:16:34.500 Right?

00:16:35.500 He's more like a symbol of their policies, and that's all they need.

00:16:41.500 They could actually win.

00:16:44.500 They won with Joe Biden hiding in the basement.

00:16:48.500 All they have to do is take Fetterman and hide him in the basement.

00:16:52.500 There's no reason to think that won't work.

00:16:54.500 In the actual real world, even the Democrats know that would work.

00:17:00.500 That would really work.

00:17:02.500 Like, how could that be more absurd?

00:17:07.500 I don't know.

00:17:08.500 There's nothing you can say about that that can, like, take it to the exaggeration level.

00:17:12.500 It's the ultimate exaggeration.

00:17:14.500 Like, just by itself.

00:17:15.500 This could not be crazier.

00:17:17.500 Now, of course, the argument, there was a little bit of meat on the argument that he appealed to, I guess, white male voters or something.

00:17:27.500 You know, blue collar workers.

00:17:28.500 So that makes sense.

00:17:30.500 And then the argument is that he would be recovered from his stroke.

00:17:33.500 So, you know, it's not going to be like the Senate race.

00:17:36.500 And that's a fair statement.

00:17:38.500 He might actually recover from his stroke.

00:17:40.500 And he might appeal to a certain segment that would give Trump some trouble.

00:17:44.500 It's actually in the realm of something that could happen.

00:17:51.500 Well, if you're trying to keep up on the Dilbert website that's been down since Friday, when I tell you it got hacked, I don't know the details.

00:18:05.500 I mean, I assume they know it got hacked, but I'm not even sure that's true.

00:18:11.500 Apparently, it's just, like, removed from the DNS.

00:18:14.500 It's like it didn't exist.

00:18:16.500 And the last I knew, the admins were locked out from some key functions.

00:18:22.500 So it might not even be fixable.

00:18:25.500 And when I say not fixable, I mean, they might have to start from scratch.

00:18:28.500 As in, you can't even do a backup.

00:18:31.500 Right?

00:18:32.500 Because in order to access the backup, you'd have to have access to all the, you know, parts of the system.

00:18:37.500 And they don't.

00:18:38.500 So they might have to just erase it.

00:18:40.500 Just erase the whole fucking thing.

00:18:42.500 And just start over.

00:18:47.500 Now, I don't know if that has anything to do with me.

00:18:51.500 Because I'm, at this moment, I'm the only controversial artist.

00:18:56.500 Because the other comics were affected, too.

00:18:59.500 It wasn't just Dilbert.

00:19:00.500 It was a range of, I don't know, a hundred different comics that are all part of the same syndication process.

00:19:06.500 So, yeah, I doubt it was because of ESG or anything like that.

00:19:11.500 I doubt it.

00:19:12.500 I feel like it was probably just general fuckery and not necessarily aimed at me.

00:19:17.500 Does anybody think it was aimed at me?

00:19:19.500 Let's test your conspiracy theorizing.

00:19:22.500 Because I don't.

00:19:23.500 I don't think it was aimed at me.

00:19:25.500 Yeah.

00:19:26.500 I'm getting a lot of yeses.

00:19:27.500 I won't dismiss that.

00:19:29.500 Right?

00:19:30.500 So I won't tell you you're crazy.

00:19:32.500 Because if you think it was aimed at me, that's not crazy.

00:19:35.500 It just would be sort of an indirect way to do it.

00:19:39.500 Because, you know, the site will be down for a few days.

00:19:42.500 Costs me, it's going to cost me a quarter of my income for the month.

00:19:47.500 Right?

00:19:48.500 So it's really expensive.

00:19:49.500 A quarter of my income from that source, just that source.

00:19:55.500 It's pretty expensive.

00:19:57.500 So we'll see.

00:19:59.500 You know, the trouble is, it wouldn't stop me from talking about ESG or anything else.

00:20:06.500 So it's not going to stop me.

00:20:07.500 So it wouldn't be really an effective way to go about it.

00:20:11.500 All right.

00:20:13.500 Let's see.

00:20:17.500 I'm not going to talk about mass shootings.

00:20:20.500 Everybody okay with that?

00:20:21.500 I just want to get a...

00:20:23.500 Let me just take the temperature in the room.

00:20:27.500 You're all okay with that, right?

00:20:28.500 I just want to make sure everybody's on the same page.

00:20:31.500 We're just not going to talk about the mass shootings.

00:20:34.500 Just period.

00:20:37.500 And if you want to know about that stuff, there are new sources for that.

00:20:41.500 It's just not going to be part of what I do.

00:20:43.500 All right.

00:20:46.500 There's a new ivermectin news.

00:20:49.500 Ivermectin just won't die.

00:20:52.500 It's like every day there's some new thing.

00:20:55.500 So now there's a doctor lawsuit against the FDA saying that the FDA prevented them from using it off-label,

00:21:02.500 which is separate from saying whether it worked or didn't work.

00:21:05.500 So this is not a conversation about whether ivermectin works or doesn't work.

00:21:10.500 It's only a conversation about whether doctors should have the right to take a chance

00:21:15.500 if they think the risk-reward situation looks right.

00:21:19.500 And the FDA recommended against it, but now the FDA's defense is,

00:21:23.500 we didn't tell you you couldn't use it.

00:21:27.500 We just recommended against it.

00:21:30.500 Does that feel like a good argument to you?

00:21:34.500 Because wouldn't a doctor be totally chilled out?

00:21:40.500 You'd be frozen out of the process if you thought the FDA said don't do it.

00:21:44.500 Because if something goes wrong, and it could go wrong in two different ways.

00:21:49.500 It could go wrong because you gave somebody ivermectin and something bad happened.

00:21:53.500 And then if they sue, it's not just an ordinary case of off-label use.

00:21:58.500 It would be a case of off-label use when the FDA told you directly don't do it.

00:22:03.500 So it's going to look like it has some extra responsibility.

00:22:08.500 Right?

00:22:09.500 So to me, I think the doctors have the better argument.

00:22:13.500 I think the doctors have the better argument.

00:22:15.500 I do agree with the FDA that the way they worded it was not a legal requirement.

00:22:22.500 They worded it as a strong recommendation.

00:22:26.500 I don't think that's strong, that's not a good argument.

00:22:29.500 Because they're the FDA.

00:22:31.500 Right?

00:22:32.500 The FDA isn't like a Twitter user who's just got an opinion.

00:22:36.500 Their opinion moves things.

00:22:38.500 And it had to have a chilling effect on the doctors.

00:22:41.500 So we'll see how that goes.

00:22:43.500 I don't like to see anybody get sued if they were doing their best.

00:22:47.500 So maybe this is not good.

00:22:51.500 Maybe everybody was just doing their best and got it wrong.

00:22:54.500 I don't know.

00:22:55.500 There's still a lot of questions on that.

00:22:57.500 We'll talk about that a little more.

00:22:59.500 Have you heard of a thing called grounding?

00:23:01.500 Where you walk barefoot outdoors on dirt and grass

00:23:06.500 and it's supposed to immediately fix your blood pressure

00:23:09.500 and your system and everything?

00:23:11.500 All right.

00:23:12.500 Well, there's a video going around.

00:23:14.500 And I'm going to test your critical thinking skills.

00:23:17.500 All right?

00:23:18.500 So we're going to test if you can analyze the news properly

00:23:22.500 and if you have the right analytical tools

00:23:25.500 to see a news story for what it is.

00:23:27.500 So there's a video going around where there's a doctor

00:23:30.500 giving a demonstration on video of grounding.

00:23:34.500 He's got an elderly patient and he takes her blood

00:23:37.500 and then shows you on the screen the red blood cells.

00:23:41.500 And he says, well, they're all bunched up,

00:23:43.500 kind of looking inactive and bunched up.

00:23:46.500 Then he says, after 10 minutes of walking outdoors,

00:23:50.500 we're going to test her blood again.

00:23:53.500 And they test it again and it's like way different.

00:23:56.500 Like the red blood cells are looking all active and vital

00:23:59.500 and they're not on top of each other.

00:24:01.500 It really looks like they do a good job for you.

00:24:05.500 So he uses this to demonstrate that 10 minutes of walking

00:24:10.500 around barefoot outdoors changed her situation.

00:24:15.500 Now, how many problems do you see with this?

00:24:20.500 I'll do the easy ones for you and then we'll see if you can get the hard ones.

00:24:23.500 The easy one is this.

00:24:25.500 Why would you trust a video on Twitter about anything?

00:24:29.500 Don't trust a video on Twitter of a doctor doing a demonstration.

00:24:34.500 The other things you see on Twitter of the doctors that have all this,

00:24:40.500 these arteries that are all blocked.

00:24:43.500 Have you seen those videos?

00:24:44.500 And they're showing like doctors actually taking coagulated stuff

00:24:49.500 out of deceased people's arteries.

00:24:51.500 Should you believe that one?

00:24:53.500 There are lots of them.

00:24:54.500 Should you believe those?

00:24:55.500 No, no.

00:24:56.500 Everything that's a doctor giving a demonstration on video,

00:24:59.500 zero credibility.

00:25:01.500 Zero credibility.

00:25:03.500 So that's your first test.

00:25:06.500 If you thought that because it was a real doctor,

00:25:09.500 and I'm sure it is a real doctor,

00:25:11.500 and that the doctor believed what they were doing,

00:25:13.500 I think he does, can't tell,

00:25:15.500 and that you saw it on video,

00:25:18.500 that gives you zero credibility.

00:25:21.500 If you're being an adult, sophisticated consumer of medical news,

00:25:28.500 that should be rated as zero.

00:25:31.500 Now that doesn't mean there's nothing to the process.

00:25:34.500 I'm just saying that video on Twitter is your lowest level of credibility in the world.

00:25:39.500 Because there's going to be video on both sides of everything.

00:25:43.500 You know, how are you going to pick?

00:25:45.500 All right, here's some more things that are wrong with it.

00:25:47.500 Did they control for the other?

00:25:50.500 Yeah, right.

00:25:51.500 It wasn't, of course, a randomized control test.

00:25:54.500 But let's just do the obvious stuff.

00:25:56.500 What were the other things that could have caused the differences in the slides?

00:26:02.500 Number one, she walked outside in the sun.

00:26:06.500 Don't we already know that being in the sun changes your metabolism?

00:26:11.500 I don't know if it changes in that particular way,

00:26:15.500 but you haven't controlled for sun.

00:26:17.500 Isn't that kind of big?

00:26:19.500 And temperature.

00:26:20.500 You haven't controlled for temperature.

00:26:22.500 You haven't controlled for any difference in,

00:26:25.500 somebody mentioned, hydration.

00:26:27.500 What if she had a big drink of water before she went outside?

00:26:32.500 Could change, apparently that can change it too.

00:26:36.500 Somebody told me that they could get that same effect by how they showed the sample

00:26:42.500 and whether, I think it's whether you squeeze the glass plates on the blood sample enough.

00:26:48.500 If you don't squeeze them, they look like blood cells are stacked up.

00:26:52.500 If you squeeze them, you can see them separate.

00:26:54.500 So I don't know if there's anything to that,

00:26:57.500 but apparently the way you decide to prepare the slide could give you a different result.

00:27:01.500 All right.

00:27:03.500 What about the fact that she was walking versus sitting?

00:27:06.500 Don't you think that walking around also changes your chemistry in a positive way?

00:27:13.500 We already know that.

00:27:15.500 Don't you think that walking changed her breathing?

00:27:18.500 We already know that walking around lowers your blood pressure.

00:27:23.500 Walking around is the number one thing that's recommended for lowering your blood pressure,

00:27:28.500 just by itself, with shoes.

00:27:30.500 So if she goes and walks around without shoes,

00:27:33.500 she's already doing the number one thing that is recommended for lowering your blood pressure.

00:27:38.500 And then what's the barefoot got to do with anything?

00:27:41.500 Right?

00:27:42.500 Yeah, and then there's a good point.

00:27:46.500 We were not designed for sitting.

00:27:48.500 If all you did is measure somebody who had been sitting versus somebody who had been standing and walking,

00:27:53.500 there should be a difference.

00:27:55.500 What about that being in a doctor's office makes you automatically tense and probably changes your chemistry?

00:28:03.500 You walk outside, you're comfortable.

00:28:05.500 All right, here's another one.

00:28:08.500 The video of the woman walking outside showed, it looked like a female assistant or maybe a family member,

00:28:15.500 who was, if I remember correctly, I think they were, maybe one was holding the arm of the other, you know, keeping her up.

00:28:24.500 Human touch.

00:28:26.500 Human touch changes your oxytocin immediately.

00:28:29.500 Is this a woman who hadn't been touched by, because she was an elderly woman.

00:28:33.500 Is this a woman who hadn't really been touched by anybody all day?

00:28:37.500 And she finally had some human contact?

00:28:39.500 I don't know, there's so many things going on.

00:28:42.500 Placebo.

00:28:43.500 Placebo effect.

00:28:44.500 Do you think that the woman knew she was part of a study?

00:28:47.500 Of course she did.

00:28:49.500 There was no control.

00:28:50.500 So literally, how many reasons did I give you?

00:28:55.500 Yeah, sample size of one.

00:28:57.500 How many reasons did I give you not to trust this video?

00:29:02.500 Six?

00:29:03.500 Eight?

00:29:04.500 I didn't count them all.

00:29:05.500 The Hawthorne effect?

00:29:07.500 Yeah.

00:29:08.500 Right.

00:29:09.500 So, ask yourself, ask yourself how many of those you spotted yourself.

00:29:15.500 I didn't get them all.

00:29:16.500 Some other people noted a few that I missed.

00:29:19.500 And just tell yourself that this is a good exercise.

00:29:22.500 Like, if you could do what I just did, your ability to consume news and know what is bullshit

00:29:29.500 and what isn't would be really good.

00:29:31.500 So this is a good exercise.

00:29:34.500 My personal opinion is I don't know that there's any science to this so-called grounding thing,

00:29:40.500 or walking around, I don't know.

00:29:43.500 I don't want to get my feet dirty, so probably won't try it.

00:29:48.500 And maybe I will when it's warmer.

00:29:51.500 All right.

00:29:52.500 There's a new evidence that shows that the obese, the fatter you are, the more you spread COVID.

00:29:58.500 Is there anybody who didn't already assume that was true?

00:30:04.500 Anybody?

00:30:05.500 Didn't you all sort of just intuitively think that the bigger you are, the more you're going to spread COVID?

00:30:11.500 And I would add, taller as well.

00:30:15.500 Because I think if your lung capacity is bigger, and especially if you're overweight, maybe your breathing is a little labored,

00:30:25.500 wouldn't there be a higher volume of just air coming out of a bigger human?

00:30:30.500 Right?

00:30:31.500 And if you were overweight, I don't know if there's more chance you'd have it, but there's more chance you'd give it.

00:30:39.500 So I'm going to confess something that I've been doing since the pandemic.

00:30:45.500 I have intentionally avoided being close to large people.

00:30:50.500 Large in all the senses, not just weight, but large.

00:30:54.500 Like if somebody's six foot six, I kept my distance for that exact reason.

00:31:00.500 And if I was around a kid, I'd think, well, you know, there's not much air coming out of a kid.

00:31:07.500 So, you know, I don't want to get into the argument of, you know, the whole thing was nothing to be afraid of,

00:31:14.500 and why are you afraid of big people, you coward, and did you believe all the bad things that people told you, the government?

00:31:22.500 I don't want to get into that.

00:31:23.500 I'm just saying that as I was in the fog of war, and I was assessing my personal risks without the benefit of good data,

00:31:31.500 I said to myself, well, the easiest thing I could do is just not be close to really big people who breathe a lot.

00:31:39.500 And it turns out that was right.

00:31:41.500 Now, I might not have been right for the right reason.

00:31:43.500 You know, they didn't say specifically.

00:31:46.500 It's because of the larger, you know, lung capacity.

00:31:50.500 I don't know why, but, you know, I guess my sense, common sense, if you want to call that, doesn't really exist.

00:31:59.500 But at least my instincts took me in the right direction.

00:32:03.500 Is there anybody who did the same?

00:32:05.500 Is there anybody who felt less comfortable around big people?

00:32:10.500 Anybody else have that?

00:32:12.500 I'm seeing a bunch of yeses.

00:32:13.500 Okay.

00:32:14.500 So it wasn't just me.

00:32:15.500 Yeah.

00:32:16.500 A bunch of yeses.

00:32:17.500 Okay.

00:32:18.500 Interesting.

00:32:19.500 Yeah.

00:32:20.500 All right.

00:32:25.500 We'll be finding out new things forever, I think.

00:32:30.500 All right.

00:32:31.500 Here's notes from the simulation.

00:32:33.500 There's a clinic in 2017, I guess, Secretary Levine.

00:32:39.500 It's a simple kind of a gender clinic where they do the top and bottom surgeries on people.

00:32:46.500 And Secretary Levine asked in 2017, asked the co-founder for literature to support gender confirmation surgery protocols in minors.

00:32:59.500 So Secretary Levine, you know, wondered if there was some data to recommend it, I guess.

00:33:08.500 And the response was, quote, hi, Rachel, I'm not aware of existing literature, but it is certainly happening.

00:33:15.500 In other words, the person doing the surgeries, or in charge of the facility doing it, confirmed that it was happening, but was not aware of any supporting science.

00:33:29.500 All right.

00:33:30.500 All right.

00:33:32.500 Now, here's the thing.

00:33:35.500 Have you noticed that I haven't weighed in on this topic?

00:33:38.500 Has that been, like, really obvious to you that I've avoided this?

00:33:42.500 Because most of you are all over it, right?

00:33:45.500 Right.

00:33:46.500 Now, you know that I'm more trans-friendly than just about every one of you, don't you?

00:33:52.500 So just establishing the base.

00:33:55.500 Yeah, I'm way more trans and LBGTQ-friendly than maybe my audience.

00:34:02.500 Now, here's my problem with the gender reassignment surgeries for minors.

00:34:09.500 How do you square parental rights with your opinion of what's better for somebody else's kid?

00:34:19.500 Now, if you ask me, are all those parents, hold on, hold on, if you ask me, are those parents making a good decision for their children, I'd say you could almost be sure that some of them are not.

00:34:33.500 I don't know what percentage.

00:34:35.500 Would you agree with that statement?

00:34:37.500 If there are a lot of people involved, and it's a human decision, and people are all different, there certainly are cases where it's good for the child, in my opinion, and certainly cases where it's bad for the child.

00:34:51.500 Now, I'm going to define good very narrowly.

00:34:54.500 Good meaning that that child will grow up to an adult and be glad all of their life that they made the decision.

00:35:00.500 Now, that's different from your opinion of what's good for them.

00:35:03.500 You might have an opinion that, well, no, they just think they're happy, but they would have been much happier some other way.

00:35:08.500 But that's your opinion.

00:35:10.500 People get to have their own opinion of what worked for them and what makes them happy.

00:35:13.500 So your opinion of somebody else's happiness, irrelevant, right?

00:35:17.500 It's only their opinion.

00:35:18.500 So would you agree with the following statement?

00:35:21.500 That although we don't know what percentage goes either way, clearly there are people where the parents are making a mistake,

00:35:28.500 and clearly there are cases where that child will grow up and be glad their parents supported them.

00:35:34.500 Would you agree that in both cases that...

00:35:37.500 But we don't know if it's 1% and 99 or 99 and 1%.

00:35:42.500 I don't have any data to suggest which way it leans, even.

00:35:45.500 Right?

00:35:46.500 So I have an ethical sort of moral block here, because I have a really, really strong feeling

00:35:57.500 that I don't want the government telling a parent what to do with their own children.

00:36:02.500 And I know you agree with me on that.

00:36:05.500 Generally speaking, you agree.

00:36:07.500 But you do make the exception for, most of you do, for abortion, don't you?

00:36:12.500 That would be a case where you say, whoa, whoa, whoa.

00:36:14.500 A parent doesn't get to decide that.

00:36:17.500 All right?

00:36:18.500 You can decide what haircut your kid gets, but you can't decide to eliminate them,

00:36:23.500 you know, according to the conservative view of what a fetus is.

00:36:28.500 So where do you draw the line?

00:36:32.500 Right?

00:36:33.500 How many parents are causing permanent damage to their kids every day just through normal

00:36:39.500 stuff?

00:36:40.500 How many alcoholic parents are there?

00:36:43.500 Lots.

00:36:44.500 Do you think they should have their kids taken away?

00:36:47.500 You can make an argument for it.

00:36:50.500 How many parents are, let's say, toxic narcissists who are just like destroying the mental health

00:36:58.500 of their kids?

00:36:59.500 A lot.

00:37:00.500 A lot.

00:37:01.500 Do you think their kids should be taken away?

00:37:04.500 How many have mental health problems and they're making their kids crazy?

00:37:07.500 Should they be taken away?

00:37:10.500 Now, these are not, I wouldn't say these are analogies.

00:37:15.500 I would say this is a consistency test.

00:37:18.500 And if you say this is a different situation, then that would be a good argument.

00:37:23.500 You could say, well, all those other examples, you know, they're different in some way.

00:37:28.500 But are they?

00:37:29.500 Are they?

00:37:30.500 Are they different?

00:37:32.500 In all the cases I'm giving, the parents are making a bad decision, hypothetically.

00:37:37.500 I'm not saying that it's a bad decision to, you know, get the surgery.

00:37:41.500 I'm saying that in some cases it might be.

00:37:43.500 So in other cases, it might be a bad decision to not put the kid up for adoption.

00:37:50.500 Don't you think there are parents who really should put their kid up for adoption because

00:37:53.500 they're just ruining the kid?

00:37:55.500 Of course.

00:37:56.500 But do you get to make that decision?

00:37:59.500 It's tough.

00:38:00.500 It's tough.

00:38:01.500 It's tough.

00:38:02.500 I think you lose no matter which way you go.

00:38:05.500 You just have to decide which way to lose.

00:38:07.500 And that's the only decision you get.

00:38:09.500 So you can lose by knowing that maybe some children got surgeries that they will regret.

00:38:15.500 That would be losing.

00:38:16.500 You know, even if it's not you or your kid, you still feel it because we're all responsible

00:38:21.500 for the kids, right?

00:38:22.500 You'd all agree with that, wouldn't you?

00:38:25.500 That we're not all responsible for every adult necessarily, but we're kind of all responsible

00:38:31.500 for the kids.

00:38:32.500 Not as responsible as the parents, but, you know, the backup is just automatic, right?

00:38:38.500 If a kid is homeless, pretty much any parent would say, oh, well, come here for tonight

00:38:44.500 at least.

00:38:45.500 So we're all the parents of the kids if their parents don't get it right.

00:38:49.500 But where do you take the decision away from the parents?

00:38:53.500 I think that you couldn't have that standard.

00:38:56.500 So it's a tough one.

00:38:58.500 There's no right answer for this, I don't think.

00:39:01.500 All right.

00:39:02.500 There is a trial.

00:39:04.500 Did you know that the Oath Keepers, a so-called right-wing militia group, which is probably

00:39:13.500 accurate.

00:39:14.500 Probably right-wing militia group is pretty close.

00:39:17.500 I'm not sure if they would call themselves that.

00:39:20.500 But anyway, there's several of them being, they're in a criminal trial, and I guess it's

00:39:24.500 going to the jury now.

00:39:26.500 And so far the evidence against them, as their defense attorney says, no evidence was provided

00:39:35.500 no evidence that they planned to storm the Capitol, no evidence that they planned to breach the

00:39:42.500 rotunda, and no evidence that they planned to stop or delay the certification of the elections.

00:39:50.500 They just had a whole, they had a whole trial in which there was no evidence of either intent, planning, or actually doing.

00:40:01.500 Now I think they did probably enter the rotunda, but not in terms of any kind of a plan.

00:40:06.500 This is actually going to the jury.

00:40:09.500 How does it even go to the jury?

00:40:12.500 How does the judge not say, you know, you didn't actually show any evidence?

00:40:19.500 Now this is the defense saying there's no evidence.

00:40:22.500 But I believe the case is being made like, sort of, you know, like, there's enough suggestion.

00:40:31.500 Well, I think you need evidence, don't you?

00:40:34.500 There's no person who testified to it.

00:40:37.500 The prosecution had zero human witnesses and zero documentation.

00:40:43.500 Now, maybe I'm wrong.

00:40:47.500 I may be, you know, maybe I don't have some details right.

00:40:50.500 But that's what the defense attorney says.

00:40:52.500 The defense attorney says there's no human or written evidence for the allegations.

00:40:59.500 None.

00:41:00.500 There's only sort of indirect suggestion that these are the kind of people and a thing happened.

00:41:06.500 Well, you put the kind of people with the thing.

00:41:09.500 Probably the kind of people intended to do the thing.

00:41:13.500 That's basically the, that's their argument.

00:41:16.500 Now, they'll probably still get convicted.

00:41:19.500 Don't you think?

00:41:21.500 If they do get convicted, Trump's elected.

00:41:26.500 I think Trump just gets elected.

00:41:28.500 Because there will be people who want Trump elected just to pardon the January 6th people.

00:41:34.500 And that's not a bad argument.

00:41:37.500 If you said to me, you're a single issue voter, I say fentanyl first.

00:41:42.500 But secondly, would be pardons.

00:41:45.500 Because I think, I think the January 6th was the biggest, the response to January 6th is the biggest threat to democracy I've ever seen.

00:41:55.500 January 6th itself looks like a threat to the other side, because they still believe the following two things.

00:42:02.500 Imagine believing this.

00:42:04.500 Imagine believing that Republicans stage insurrections without bringing out their weapons.

00:42:11.500 But my favorite, that I'm the only one who's ever said this.

00:42:17.500 Correct me if I'm wrong.

00:42:18.500 Tell me if you've ever heard anybody else say this.

00:42:21.500 We know from the messages, the text messages on January 6th, that for sure, Don Jr. was not aware of any plans for an insurrection.

00:42:31.500 Who believes that Trump planned an insurrection and Don Jr. didn't know about it?

00:42:38.500 I mean, really?

00:42:41.500 Really?

00:42:42.500 Really?

00:42:43.500 Really?

00:42:44.500 There's somebody who actually believes that.

00:42:47.500 Now, the only way that I think that we can get to this point is that nobody asked that obvious question.

00:42:54.500 There is no scenario in our reality in which Father Trump throws a coup of the United States and Don Jr. didn't get wind of it.

00:43:07.500 I mean, seriously.

00:43:09.500 Oh, Dan Bongino said that?

00:43:11.500 Okay.

00:43:12.500 Good.

00:43:13.500 Yeah, Bongino's usually on.

00:43:14.500 He's on the good stuff.

00:43:16.500 But shouldn't that be the whole argument?

00:43:20.500 But here's what's happening.

00:43:21.500 I don't know if you noticed.

00:43:23.500 Do you remember how the Russia collusion thing morphed?

00:43:26.500 It started down as, I think Trump and Putin probably colluded maybe during that time when they told the interpreter to leave, or whatever it was.

00:43:39.500 Maybe they've colluded and really Putin is running Trump as president.

00:43:44.500 So that's how it started.

00:43:45.500 Do you remember how it ended?

00:43:48.500 It ended with, all of those allegations are true because something totally different is true.

00:43:54.500 That Manafort did some things on his own that were sketchy, had nothing to do with the original claim.

00:44:01.500 And the Russian troll farm did some insignificant ads so small that it could not have possibly made any difference.

00:44:10.500 And some of them were anti-Trump and some of them were anti-Hillary.

00:44:13.500 Mostly anti-Hillary.

00:44:15.500 That's it.

00:44:16.500 That's it.

00:44:17.500 And still, the Democrats say it was proven.

00:44:22.500 The Russia collusion was proven.

00:44:25.500 They allowed themselves to drift from Trump was involved to completely other people who were involved in other things.

00:44:34.500 Right?

00:44:35.500 That's happening with the January 6th stuff.

00:44:41.500 Already, the January 6th stuff has evolved from Trump planned with all these bad people.

00:44:48.500 He planned an actual overthrow of the country that has already been debunked largely by the January 6th hearings themselves.

00:44:57.500 But now it's all the way, and tell me if you've seen it yet, it's all the way to, he could have done more to stop it.

00:45:05.500 Have you seen it yet?

00:45:07.500 And they're going to turn, he could have done more to stop it, into I told you he planned an insurrection.

00:45:16.500 And they're not even close.

00:45:18.500 Because everybody involved could have done more to stop it.

00:45:22.500 Somebody said to me, you know, I gave this argument online.

00:45:27.500 Well, let me actually take you through a Twitter exchange, because I think you can see the whole thing here.

00:45:36.500 All right, so it started this way.

00:45:44.500 So Molly Hemingway noted that Larry O'Connor had made this point on the radio, I guess, that one of the things that's going to happen by Twitter deplatforming,

00:45:56.500 one of the things that happened when Twitter deplatformed Trump is that you didn't get to be reminded what his last two tweets were.

00:46:04.500 Trump's last tweets were calling for peace and no violence.

00:46:10.500 And when you take those out of the public record, because otherwise they would have just sat there and we would look at them every day,

00:46:17.500 and you would forget maybe the timing of it, but you'd say, I don't get it.

00:46:23.500 Here it is in his own words, be peaceful.

00:46:27.500 So isn't that the end of it?

00:46:30.500 You'd know exactly what he was promoting.

00:46:33.500 It's right here.

00:46:34.500 He said it and he wrote it.

00:46:37.500 Don't do anything dangerous, in effect.

00:46:40.500 So that would be an important argument on the other side.

00:46:43.500 Now he's reinstated.

00:46:45.500 And since he was reinstated, I had that same reaction maybe some of you did.

00:46:50.500 The same reaction was, whoa, I forgot that it was so obvious that his last tweets were where you would want them to be.

00:46:58.500 You know, don't do anything dangerous.

00:47:00.500 So that's a thing.

00:47:03.500 And then I saw a Twitter user, Michael Stein, I guess he's on the anti-Trump side of things.

00:47:15.500 He said, the trouble is that by the time that Trump tweeted that, it was already too late.

00:47:22.500 To which I say, that's not really the point.

00:47:26.500 The point is that it shows his frame of mind, right?

00:47:31.500 The point is not that he didn't do it soon enough or good enough.

00:47:36.500 The entire January 6th thing is that he intended it.

00:47:39.500 And this shows clearly that it was not his intention, because he said it loudly in the middle of the event.

00:47:46.500 If in the middle of the event you say, don't do any violent stuff, that's your state of mind.

00:47:53.500 It couldn't possibly be that he was telling people to stand down at the same time he wanted them to ratchet it up.

00:47:59.500 That wouldn't make sense.

00:48:01.500 So that didn't make sense.

00:48:05.500 So then after I said to this Twitter user that it shows his state of mind, and that's really the whole argument.

00:48:18.500 And then I noticed that it's basically the same path that the Russia collusion took.

00:48:25.500 And then Michael Stein comes back.

00:48:28.500 Do you remember how the Charlottesville fine people hoax?

00:48:32.500 Once you debunked it, that Trump called neo-Nazis fine people, and it's easy to debunk.

00:48:38.500 You just play the whole quote instead of the edited one.

00:48:41.500 It's that easy.

00:48:42.500 Do the people say, whoa, I was totally wrong about this important thing, I revised my opinion, when it's totally debunked?

00:48:49.500 Nope.

00:48:50.500 They go down this well of related things that what about this, what about this, until you've removed all of their objections.

00:48:59.500 So now I'm seeing the same kind of well happen.

00:49:03.500 So then on Twitter, Michael Stein said, you know, why didn't Trump call out the National Guard?

00:49:09.500 So we're already, we've gone from he planned an insurrection to he didn't do enough, and then a specific, why didn't he call out the National Guard?

00:49:19.500 And the answer is, why?

00:49:24.500 He tried, right?

00:49:27.500 Yeah, it was authority.

00:49:28.500 And now, and here's the context.

00:49:31.500 Every leader, every leader who had any ability to make it better that day, they all fucked up.

00:49:38.500 Every one of them operated below their, you know, the ability which we wish they had shown.

00:49:44.500 So Pelosi didn't do enough.

00:49:47.500 Mayor Bowser didn't do enough.

00:49:50.500 Trump didn't do enough.

00:49:52.500 Now, why did Trump not do enough?

00:49:56.500 Well, something about authority.

00:49:58.500 But I also suspect he didn't know exactly how bad it was.

00:50:02.500 He may have had an opinion that people were getting roughed up, but it was worse than that.

00:50:08.500 And I'm not sure when he knew what, right?

00:50:10.500 Or how, or if he processed that it was really that bad.

00:50:13.500 So those things we don't know.

00:50:15.500 Anyway, so Michael points out that there's so many indications that Trump was, you know, really planning something bad that day.

00:50:27.500 So many.

00:50:28.500 How can he ignore all the dry tinder brush around it?

00:50:33.500 I mean, it's all, if you look at any one thing, sure, you could argue that one thing.

00:50:38.500 But if you look at the totality of the evidence, it's very damning for Trump.

00:50:43.500 To which I said, you can't tell the difference between confirmation and a pile of evidence.

00:50:50.500 Nobody can.

00:50:52.500 I can't.

00:50:53.500 You can't.

00:50:54.500 Scientists can't.

00:50:55.500 Sometimes the law can't.

00:50:56.500 I mean, if you have enough time, maybe you can sort it out.

00:50:59.500 But from our perspective, a hundred facts that look like, well, none of them are confirming anything, but they're all sort of suggestive of this thing, doesn't mean anything.

00:51:10.500 It doesn't mean anything.

00:51:12.500 Because once you're convinced something is true, you will see all the evidence in the world to support your opinion, even if it's not true.

00:51:21.500 So how true something is, is unrelated to how much evidence there is.

00:51:26.500 That's the part that your head has trouble holding on.

00:51:29.500 The amount of evidence for a thing is not related to whether it's true.

00:51:34.500 The quality of evidence is, the quality of evidence is, if you had just one high-quality piece of evidence, that's all it would take.

00:51:42.500 But if you had 50 reasons, but none of the 50 were, like, nails it, doesn't mean anything.

00:51:50.500 50 reasons suggesting something doesn't have any value.

00:51:53.500 Because you would see 50 reasons in your imagination, even if they didn't exist, which is tough to really live your life that way and actually understand that.

00:52:05.500 All right, I saw a fascinating debate by Brett Weinstein on his Dark Horse podcast.

00:52:12.500 There was some critic who was complaining that he had sort of gone too far.

00:52:18.500 And I'll do a bad job of characterizing both of their opinions.

00:52:22.500 But the thing that Brett had suggested is that we should hold as at least a hypothesis, and this is the important word, hypothesis.

00:52:33.500 And I'll tell you what his hypothesis is in a moment, but don't make the mistake his critic did of taking the word hypothesis and then trying to turn it into what you're saying.

00:52:45.500 And then Brett has to keep correcting him.

00:52:48.500 No, I'm not saying that's proven.

00:52:51.500 I'm saying it's a hypothesis that's, you know, worthy of consideration.

00:52:56.500 So here's the hypothesis that Brett says a reasonable person could agree with.

00:53:03.500 His critic says a reasonable person could not agree with that because there are better alternatives that are much more likely.

00:53:14.500 Right?

00:53:15.500 So here's what Brett suggested.

00:53:18.500 That there's enough evidence that the government is doing things obviously the opposite of what would be good.

00:53:26.500 And that includes vaccinating kids, according to Brett.

00:53:30.500 Vaccinating kids, the evidence shows that's a bad idea, according to Brett.

00:53:34.500 And requiring vaccinations of service people that ends up just lowering our readiness, but doesn't seem to get you anything in return.

00:53:45.500 Because they're the last people that need vaccinations.

00:53:47.500 They're healthy and young.

00:53:49.500 So that and other, you know, I think there are more examples of that.

00:53:56.500 So Brett says, how do you explain the government doing what is clearly and obviously the opposite of smart or good for the country?

00:54:06.500 And he says that one of the things you can't rule out as a hypothesis is since our government is for sale, meaning that if you donate enough, you figure out how to benefit somebody behind the scenes.

00:54:23.500 You know, basically there's lots of ways money influences our process.

00:54:28.500 And nobody disagrees with that, right?

00:54:30.500 Nobody would disagree with the notion that money distorts our process.

00:54:35.500 Now, here's the only thing that Brett added to the conversation and he got pushback from it.

00:54:40.500 Can you rule out that some of that money is coming from external, let's say, non-friendly sources, unnamed?

00:54:50.500 He didn't name any specific ones except by example.

00:54:53.500 And that can we rule out that they're intentionally influencing us to do all the wrong things?

00:55:01.500 To which I say, I think that's completely reasonable.

00:55:06.500 And that follows the thing I've told you forever, that if something can be gamed, if something can be gamed, you know, if you can hack a system, it will be.

00:55:18.500 So long as there's lots of people involved, enough time has passed so people can, you know, operate their schemes, and there's a big gain.

00:55:27.500 There's a big upside to it.

00:55:29.500 Now, as he points out, imagine spending, you know, a million dollars to change how America thinks and cause it to decrease its military readiness

00:55:41.500 versus how much you'd have to spend to improve your own military readiness to compete with the United States.

00:55:48.500 One of them is really cheap.

00:55:50.500 Why in the world would an adversary such as China, and that's just an example, that's not a specific accusation,

00:55:57.500 why would an adversary want to spend $100 billion building weapons when they could spend $1 million buying our Congress?

00:56:08.500 Because it wouldn't be that expensive.

00:56:10.500 Right?

00:56:11.500 So, his critic responded this way and said, no.

00:56:17.500 Although, I think he allowed that anything's possible, like you can't rule it down.

00:56:22.500 But he said, it's far more likely that what you're seeing with these things such as required vaccinations for service people,

00:56:30.500 that it has more to do with bureaucracy and inertia and people not wanting to admit they were wrong.

00:56:36.500 And there's plenty of evidence of the government, especially the military.

00:56:41.500 And this was a good point.

00:56:43.500 He goes, the military is literally famous for doing the least smart thing consistently.

00:56:49.500 I suppose if you, he was in the military.

00:56:53.500 I suppose if you were in the military, it really feels that way.

00:56:57.500 Alright, so now compare these two theories.

00:57:00.500 One, people are, you know, don't want to admit they're wrong.

00:57:05.500 So they're sticking with their old recommendations of stuff even though the data has changed.

00:57:11.500 The bureaucracy, there's, and he used, his critic used the example that some things in the military don't get fixed if nobody can get a promotion for fixing it.

00:57:23.500 And that there are cases where that's clearly the case.

00:57:26.500 It's just not anybody's job.

00:57:28.500 And if they did, it wouldn't be necessarily the thing that got them promoted.

00:57:33.500 So there's just no incentive to fix stuff in some cases.

00:57:37.500 That's not a bad argument, is it?

00:57:40.500 It's not a bad argument.

00:57:42.500 Now, I'm gonna, I think that Brett has a stronger argument.

00:57:46.500 Although you can't rank, you know, which one's more likely.

00:57:48.500 I think that's a little, that gets more to their opinions and I'll let them have their opinions on that.

00:57:53.500 I don't know how to rank those.

00:57:55.500 But I think that Brett's point is the stronger one, that if there's an open channel to influence our government, it's inexpensive and easy to access, which it appears to be.

00:58:07.500 It appears easy to access.

00:58:10.500 Any country would notice that our government's for sale.

00:58:13.500 Probably all governments are for sale.

00:58:15.500 And why wouldn't they?

00:58:17.500 Why would they not be trying to influence us that way?

00:58:20.500 I think that's a strong point.

00:58:22.500 If they're not doing it already, you'd expect that they do it later.

00:58:26.500 The best argument I can give, here's my best argument for why foreign countries are not necessarily influencing domestic policy.

00:58:39.500 Here's the counter argument.

00:58:42.500 That there's too much domestic money influencing it the way they want it.

00:58:49.500 Say, for example, that China wanted us to drill for less oil, which would make sense, because it would hurt us.

00:59:02.500 They would be competing if they were trying to bribe our government, hypothetically.

00:59:06.500 They would be competing with bribes from our own energy companies.

00:59:10.500 Don't you think American energy companies could do a better job of bribing Americans than a hypothetical Chinese attempt?

00:59:21.500 Yeah.

00:59:22.500 So, and then climate change, same thing.

00:59:26.500 Even if there are external forces trying to do propaganda, probably our domestic people have the most money and the most access.

00:59:35.500 So, basically, it's a competition of bribers.

00:59:39.500 And my guess is that foreign bribers are at a great disadvantage compared to domestic bribers.

00:59:46.500 So, I don't see our system as something that's trying to be a democratic, republic, fair system.

00:59:55.500 And there's a little bit of Chinese or some other country influencing it.

00:59:59.500 I see it as a competition of money, which is such a big competition of money that unless you're Michael Jordan of money, you're going to be in the minor leagues.

01:00:10.500 Because, you know, the big boys are playing the money game, and even China can't compete.

01:00:17.500 Now, you say to me, Scott, China has more money than Exxon.

01:00:21.500 Like, they have more money, so of course they can compete.

01:00:25.500 But, they can't compete at that level without getting caught.

01:00:30.500 Am I right?

01:00:32.500 Like, you could compete at the level of, you know, slipping $20,000 to a congressperson.

01:00:38.500 But maybe that's not enough.

01:00:40.500 Because maybe they're getting more from Exxon.

01:00:42.500 But if you said, all right, screw it, we're going to compete with Exxon.

01:00:45.500 I'll give a million dollars to each politician.

01:00:48.500 Well, now you're going to get caught.

01:00:51.500 At some dollar amount, your odds of getting away with it shrink dramatically.

01:00:57.500 So, it could be that because our own money influence is so strong, that that's what keeps the foreigners from playing.

01:01:07.500 Which would be weird.

01:01:09.500 Weird and wonderful at the same time.

01:01:11.500 Ah, just speculated.

01:01:18.500 There's a video of Obama talking about rigged elections in 2008.

01:01:24.500 And, if I do where my phone was.

01:01:30.500 Hmm.

01:01:31.500 I used to have a phone.

01:01:32.500 I was going to play that video.

01:01:33.500 But the essence of it is that in 2008, Obama was talking to some friendly crowd.

01:01:39.500 And he was saying directly that both Democrats and Republicans have rigged elections in the past.

01:01:48.500 And that it's hard to trust the party that's running the election.

01:01:52.500 How loud.

01:01:53.500 How loud.

01:01:54.500 And he even said, I'm from Chicago.

01:01:59.500 The clear indication was, I know from the inside that elections are rigged.

01:02:05.500 Now, who's rigging the elections in Chicago?

01:02:08.500 Is it the Republicans?

01:02:10.500 No.

01:02:11.500 Obama said directly, Democrats have rigged elections.

01:02:18.500 He said it directly.

01:02:19.500 Now, that doesn't mean any future after 2008.

01:02:22.500 It doesn't mean any future election was rigged.

01:02:25.500 But, the fact that we were prevented from talking about it and acting like only Republicans say stuff like this.

01:02:33.500 The amount of gaslighting, and this was brought to my attention by Adam M.D., Adam Dopamine, you know him on Twitter.

01:02:46.500 He tweeted this.

01:02:47.500 He goes, once upon a time, voter fraud was a given.

01:02:50.500 Which is exactly right.

01:02:52.500 Once upon a time, we all assumed there was some voter fraud.

01:02:56.500 We just didn't know how much.

01:02:58.500 But didn't you just all assume it was just a given?

01:03:01.500 Right?

01:03:02.500 Did anybody think that Chicago was running, or Philadelphia, were running totally legit elections ever?

01:03:09.500 Ever?

01:03:10.500 And I'm not saying it's just Democrats.

01:03:12.500 You know, I'm going to agree with Obama that whoever's running the election, they might have a little incentive to change things in their favor.

01:03:22.500 So, and then Adam said, then the media gaslit half the country into thinking elections were the only thing in America that were not corruptible.

01:03:33.500 That might be a little of my influence there.

01:03:36.500 Just think about the fact that for the last few years, the public has been gaslit into believing that only the elections work well.

01:03:46.500 Everything else is broken, and we all agree with that.

01:03:50.500 Everything else is broken.

01:03:52.500 But not those elections.

01:03:54.500 If you think those elections are not totally secure, well, maybe you have a mental problem.

01:04:01.500 Maybe you should be kicked off of all social media, you troublemaker.

01:04:05.500 Anyway.

01:04:06.500 There's an article in publication called Common Sense by Jeffrey Kane, who referred to TikTok as digital fentanyl.

01:04:17.500 I like that.

01:04:18.500 I think that digital fentanyl is catching on.

01:04:21.500 Have you seen it?

01:04:24.500 I think I coined that.

01:04:25.500 Did I coin that?

01:04:28.500 Yeah.

01:04:29.500 Maybe other people did too.

01:04:30.500 That's the sort of thing maybe more than one person thought of it.

01:04:33.500 But digital fentanyl, that's what it is.

01:04:36.500 And what's interesting about this is that it was retweeted by Paul Graham.

01:04:45.500 Now, do you know who Paul Graham is?

01:04:49.500 One of the most, probably one of the most, let's see, well-respected minds in Silicon Valley.

01:04:56.500 So famous investor type, but also beyond being an investor, considered just one of the smart people who understands how the world works.

01:05:06.500 And he retweeted that.

01:05:08.500 So he retweeted calling TikTok digital fentanyl.

01:05:15.500 Now, let's go deeper.

01:05:18.500 Who would you trust to know if TikTok were dangerous?

01:05:24.500 If you trust me, I appreciate it, but I'm not sure I'm the person that's the expert on this.

01:05:31.500 If Paul Graham tells you that TikTok is digital fentanyl, you better frickin' believe it.

01:05:38.500 You better believe it, right?

01:05:40.500 Because he's somebody who actually knows what he's talking about.

01:05:43.500 Like, he knows everything from AI to social media platforms to software to influence.

01:05:50.500 Like, he can see the field.

01:05:52.500 If he's retweeting that TikTok is digital fentanyl, why the fuck is it still allowed to be, you know, infecting our kids?

01:06:01.500 Why the fuck?

01:06:03.500 I mean, like I said, there's nobody on the other side.

01:06:08.500 How long do we have to go before everybody notices nobody's on the other side?

01:06:13.500 There's nobody in public, anyway, saying, ah, I've got to keep this TikTok.

01:06:18.500 It's no danger.

01:06:19.500 Nobody.

01:06:20.500 Right?

01:06:21.500 Now, I told you I was a little disappointed that our congresspeople and senators were,

01:06:28.500 although they were appropriately against TikTok being available,

01:06:33.500 they would concentrate on the data privacy angle.

01:06:37.500 And I thought they should really be focusing a little bit more on the persuasion angle.

01:06:42.500 Now, that's what the Paul Graham retweet was on a piece that did influence.

01:06:47.500 It did talk about the influence angle.

01:06:50.500 So you see how important this is?

01:06:52.500 It's like one of the smartest, most trusted people in technology just says this is being used for propaganda.

01:06:59.500 Or at least has the potential to.

01:07:01.500 Right?

01:07:02.500 Cernovich too.

01:07:03.500 But, you know, Cernovich has the same problem I do.

01:07:06.500 Like, if you were going to listen to somebody on this topic of TikTok, would you listen to Mike Cernovich, me, or Paul Graham?

01:07:15.500 Now, as much as I think Cernovich is amazing, you know, I think he's a national treasure,

01:07:20.500 and I think I'm pretty awesome on days, neither of us should have any credibility compared to a Paul Graham.

01:07:27.500 Right?

01:07:28.500 So just understand, some people have way higher credibility for this kind of, you know, topic.

01:07:35.500 So, anyway, I did send a DM to Senator Tom Cotton.

01:07:43.500 And I just, you know, I sort of challenged him on the fact that we should be highlighting the propaganda element

01:07:50.500 and not just the data security element.

01:07:53.500 And he tweeted this the same day.

01:07:59.500 So Senator Tom Cotton tweeted,

01:08:01.500 TikTok's threat isn't just data privacy and surveillance.

01:08:04.500 It can also be a massive propaganda tool for the Chinese Communist Party.

01:08:10.500 Now, every once in a while I love my country.

01:08:16.500 And this is one of those times.

01:08:19.500 Because I'm going to tell you a story that happened a long time ago.

01:08:25.500 So this is when I was in my 20s.

01:08:28.500 This is before I did Dilbert.

01:08:30.500 So I was just a guy in a cubicle.

01:08:33.500 And I had a problem with a big national, a federal bureaucracy.

01:08:40.500 And it was a big problem, like really big problem.

01:08:44.500 And I wrote to my senator, who was Senator Pete Wilson at the time.

01:08:50.500 And I asked him if he could fix it.

01:08:52.500 You know, could he do something to fix this other entity?

01:08:55.500 And here's the thing that just blew my fucking mind.

01:08:58.500 I got an answer from the senator's office.

01:09:03.500 I don't know if, you know, maybe the senator didn't see it himself.

01:09:05.500 But his office answered and said, you know, we forwarded your message.

01:09:10.500 And it showed the letter in which they challenged the big entity.

01:09:15.500 Why the hell are you doing what you're doing?

01:09:20.500 Within, I think, just days, the big entity changed their policy.

01:09:27.500 That was the first time I changed, like, a national policy just by asking.

01:09:36.500 I just asked.

01:09:38.500 And I made a good point.

01:09:40.500 I supported my point.

01:09:42.500 I gave the evidence.

01:09:44.500 And a senator of the United States looked at little cubicle dwelling me and said,

01:09:50.500 huh, that's a good point.

01:09:52.500 I'm going to ask that question.

01:09:54.500 Now, here's the thing that I have to emphasize.

01:09:57.500 This issue was not, like, of national concern.

01:10:02.500 It was a little more my concern.

01:10:04.500 And, you know, maybe there were another million people who cared about it.

01:10:09.500 I changed the government with just one good suggestion.

01:10:13.500 Now, that has never left me.

01:10:15.500 That has never left me.

01:10:17.500 And, by the way, I did the same thing in college.

01:10:20.500 In college, two of my friends are freshman year.

01:10:24.500 We looked at the system in our dormitory that had, like, a resident assistant.

01:10:29.500 And we said, why don't we have these adults in our dorm?

01:10:33.500 You know, these grown-ups.

01:10:35.500 Why don't we do that ourselves?

01:10:37.500 And then we'll have, like, jobs.

01:10:39.500 We'll be paid to manage our own dorm.

01:10:41.500 So we came up with this crazy idea that the students would run the dorm,

01:10:46.500 and we wouldn't use professional security or professional resident assistants

01:10:51.500 or professional even maintenance.

01:10:53.500 We would even do the cleaning ourselves.

01:10:55.500 So we took this weird stoner idea to the administration.

01:10:59.500 And they said, well, you know, that's a big idea.

01:11:04.500 If you can get enough people in your dorm who are going to live there next year to agree with you,

01:11:09.500 then we'll consider it.

01:11:11.500 So we did a petition.

01:11:13.500 Took it back to them.

01:11:15.500 We drew out exactly what we had in mind.

01:11:18.500 And this included me getting a job.

01:11:21.500 So part of our plan was each of us would get our own single rooms, which were like gold.

01:11:27.500 Having a single room in a dormitory is really rare.

01:11:32.500 If you could pull that off.

01:11:34.500 So our plan was that we would get paid for being the managers of the dorm.

01:11:39.500 So we'd get paid, and we'd get private rooms.

01:11:42.500 And that was really why we were doing it.

01:11:44.500 But we also had a good idea.

01:11:47.500 The idea was legitimately a good idea.

01:11:49.500 And the administration said, okay.

01:11:52.500 And for two years, three actually, I had a private room.

01:11:58.500 Two of those years, I think I was being paid.

01:12:01.500 And it was my first example that if you made a good recommendation, you could get anything.

01:12:11.500 And I thought to myself, is this extendable?

01:12:14.500 Can you just make a reasonable recommendation to somebody in power, and that if you do it well, they'll actually change something?

01:12:23.500 So by the time I was in my 20s, I thought it wasn't crazy to write to a senator and ask them to change like a major policy.

01:12:33.500 And it worked.

01:12:34.500 I wrote to a senator, got a personal response, and it changed the policy.

01:12:39.500 Incredible.

01:12:40.500 And so when I messaged Senator Cotton, again, because the pattern is pretty obvious and repeating,

01:12:50.500 did I think that he would look at a suggestion from a citizen and that it would change, you know, at least the communication about an important thing?

01:13:00.500 And I thought, yes.

01:13:01.500 I thought, yes, that's a real thing that happens in the real world.

01:13:04.500 If you make a good case, you can get anything done.

01:13:09.500 I told you that during the pandemic, when Trump was looking for suggestions of executive orders, I happened to have a little special knowledge that telehealth was being blocked because you couldn't be a doctor across state lines.

01:13:24.500 And if you're on the phone, you might be in a different state.

01:13:27.500 So I suggested we'll get rid of that rule, especially during the pandemic, because everybody wants maximum health care by video.

01:13:35.500 And he did.

01:13:36.500 That was it.

01:13:38.500 As soon as people saw the idea, the chief of staff took it to the president.

01:13:43.500 The president looked at it and said, yeah, that looks like a perfectly reasonable pandemic executive order.

01:13:51.500 Two weeks later, there's an executive order and telehealth is born.

01:13:55.500 Now, I think some of it got reversed because it timed out.

01:13:58.500 So we're going to have to work through that.

01:14:00.500 But yeah, Biden, I think Biden reversed it because that's the, the AMA wants to protect its doctors.

01:14:06.500 I think that's what that is.

01:14:09.500 So here's your lesson.

01:14:14.500 Don't assume that the most powerful people in the world won't respond to your suggestion if it's a good one.

01:14:23.500 Right?

01:14:24.500 Bad suggestions don't work.

01:14:25.500 But if you can learn to communicate clearly and say, this is what I want.

01:14:30.500 This is why I want it.

01:14:32.500 Here's my backup, you know, to support it.

01:14:35.500 If you can learn to do that, you can run the whole country.

01:14:38.500 Because let me ask you this.

01:14:41.500 Who is in charge?

01:14:42.500 Here's your mind bender.

01:14:44.500 Who is in charge of all those things I influenced?

01:14:47.500 Well, you'd say the president was in charge of the executive orders.

01:14:50.500 You say that, you know, the big organization was in charge.

01:14:53.500 But were they?

01:14:54.500 Were they in charge?

01:14:56.500 Because I changed them.

01:14:57.500 I personally changed all of those things.

01:15:01.500 So who was in charge?

01:15:03.500 One of the greatest lessons of success is to figure out who's in charge.

01:15:10.500 And let me give you another reframe.

01:15:13.500 So this will be in my upcoming book as well.

01:15:16.500 In the old days, if I walked into a room and met somebody, I'd say to myself, that person is influencing how I feel.

01:15:24.500 How many of you feel that way?

01:15:26.500 You meet somebody, you go into a room and you say, oh, these people or this person is now changing how I feel.

01:15:33.500 I'm feeling, you know, dumb or nervous or something.

01:15:39.500 They're affecting me.

01:15:41.500 But here's something I learned in college also.

01:15:45.500 When I smoked marijuana, people acted nice to me.

01:15:51.500 And when I didn't, they didn't act as nice.

01:15:55.500 And for years, I couldn't figure out why.

01:15:57.500 And I thought it was because the marijuana made me see the world differently.

01:16:02.500 I thought, okay, that's just an illusion.

01:16:06.500 Because when I'm high, just everything looks better.

01:16:10.500 So I just remember people being nicer.

01:16:12.500 But it's not really happening.

01:16:14.500 It's just an illusion.

01:16:16.500 And eventually, as I learned more and more about how the world is wired, I realized I was causing all those people to act the way they acted.

01:16:24.500 When I came with my relaxed, happy stoner look, they immediately copied me.

01:16:30.500 And they became relaxed and happy and easy to deal with.

01:16:33.500 When I came with my, and this might surprise some of you, but I can be pretty intense.

01:16:41.500 Does that surprise anybody?

01:16:44.500 Is anybody like blown away?

01:16:46.500 That I can be kind of scary and intense?

01:16:49.500 I'm a little intense, right?

01:16:51.500 So if I've got something on my mind, like I'm working through something that matters to me, and you run into me, you'll think you just ran into a serial killer.

01:17:00.500 Like who's planning his next victim or something.

01:17:03.500 Like I'm pretty intense.

01:17:05.500 And I don't do it intentionally.

01:17:07.500 It's just when I'm deeply on something, then humans become a little less important for a while.

01:17:14.500 So, once I realized that they weren't affecting me so much as I was affecting them, then I said, wait, here's the reframe.

01:17:25.500 Every time I walk into a room, I say to myself, well, how do I want to affect these people?

01:17:32.500 Try it.

01:17:34.500 Watch how that totally changes your experience of life.

01:17:37.500 Because I'll bet you walk into a room and say, well, these people are affecting me.

01:17:41.500 Well, what are they doing to me now?

01:17:44.500 They're making me feel sad.

01:17:46.500 Right?

01:17:47.500 They don't do that anymore.

01:17:48.500 Now, part of it is because being famous helps you get into this, you know, frame of mind.

01:17:53.500 But when I walk into a room, I know I'm changing those people.

01:17:57.500 And I have to decide how.

01:17:59.500 So I say, well, I think I'll make you friendly.

01:18:02.500 And then I make them friendly.

01:18:04.500 And I go, I think I'll get you out of that bad mood.

01:18:07.500 And then I do it.

01:18:08.500 And I say, I think I'm going to make you like me.

01:18:10.500 Make somebody like me.

01:18:12.500 I change the people in the room.

01:18:15.500 They don't change me.

01:18:17.500 Now, are they changing me?

01:18:18.500 Of course.

01:18:19.500 It's just that I choose to ignore that frame entirely.

01:18:22.500 Because if I'm actively trying to change them, which is actually what I'm thinking.

01:18:27.500 I'm actively thinking, I would like you to like me.

01:18:30.500 I'd like you to laugh.

01:18:31.500 I'd like you to do something with me later.

01:18:34.500 I'd like you to agree with me.

01:18:35.500 I'd like you to respect me.

01:18:37.500 And then I do the things that make you do those things.

01:18:39.500 And it works every time.

01:18:41.500 Basically every time.

01:18:43.500 Yeah.

01:18:44.500 It's like, doesn't ever not work.

01:18:46.500 All right.

01:18:47.500 Here's another reframe.

01:18:49.500 This also will be from the book.

01:18:52.500 Does anybody have social anxiety?

01:18:54.500 You go to a gathering and you're like, oh, shit.

01:18:58.500 There's people there.

01:18:59.500 I'm going to have to talk to people I don't like.

01:19:03.500 All right.

01:19:04.500 I'm going to reframe it away from you.

01:19:06.500 If you go, if you have social anxiety, you go to an event and you say to yourself, oh, God, these people are affecting me.

01:19:15.500 I'm like, I'm sweating.

01:19:16.500 Those people are doing this to me.

01:19:18.500 They're affecting me.

01:19:20.500 All you have to do is learn the few, like a five-minute lesson on how to make conversation.

01:19:27.500 If you learn the five-minute lesson on how to make conversation, and primarily it's about asking reasonable questions and listening more than you talk.

01:19:37.500 That's the whole technique, right?

01:19:39.500 Everybody will like you.

01:19:40.500 Everybody will like you if you do that.

01:19:42.500 It's the Dale Carnegie process.

01:19:45.500 If you learn the technique, hey, how you doing?

01:19:48.500 My name's Scott.

01:19:50.500 So, you know, do you work here?

01:19:52.500 Where do you live?

01:19:54.500 Have a family?

01:19:55.500 You know, just basic questions.

01:19:57.500 They sound like they're too nosy, but in fact, people like to be able to talk about themselves because it eases them.

01:20:05.500 All right.

01:20:06.500 Here's the reframe.

01:20:07.500 Next time you walk into a room, don't do it unless you've learned the lessons of how to ask questions and introduce yourself.

01:20:15.500 So that's your basic.

01:20:16.500 You know how to start a conversation, and you know how to introduce yourself.

01:20:23.500 Now when you walk into the room, you are saving people.

01:20:28.500 You're saving them.

01:20:29.500 You see somebody who's not talking to somebody?

01:20:32.500 What do you think's going through their head?

01:20:34.500 Oh, shit.

01:20:35.500 Oh, shit.

01:20:36.500 Everybody sees me not talking to anybody.

01:20:38.500 Oh, God.

01:20:39.500 Do they notice?

01:20:40.500 I'm not even talking to anybody.

01:20:41.500 Oh, fuck.

01:20:42.500 I need to talk to somebody.

01:20:43.500 And you say to yourself, I can save that person.

01:20:46.500 You go over and introduce themselves.

01:20:48.500 Now you've saved them.

01:20:49.500 They have somebody to talk to.

01:20:51.500 And if you ask them to talk about themselves, they're double saved.

01:20:54.500 They're saved twice.

01:20:55.500 Now they have somebody to talk to, and you've made it easy.

01:20:59.500 Oh, God.

01:21:00.500 You just solved my problem.

01:21:01.500 Yeah.

01:21:02.500 That's easy, right?

01:21:05.500 And then you have to also learn how to make an excuse to leave.

01:21:10.500 One that I like to use, if you don't have to go to the bathroom, and you don't need to refresh your drink.

01:21:16.500 And those are automatics.

01:21:17.500 I use those a lot.

01:21:18.500 Here's what you just say directly.

01:21:20.500 Because you're probably there to mingle.

01:21:22.500 So I say, hey, it's been great talking to you.

01:21:24.500 I'm going to do a little more mingling.

01:21:26.500 A hundred percent of people are okay with that.

01:21:29.500 Because they're probably there for the same reason.

01:21:31.500 Do a little mingling.

01:21:33.500 So just say, hey, it's great to meet you.

01:21:35.500 Maybe exchange phone numbers if it went well.

01:21:38.500 And you say, you know, I'm going to do a little more mingling, and I'll catch up with you later.

01:21:42.500 Right?

01:21:43.500 So now I just solved your biggest social problem.

01:21:48.500 The moment you realize that with the smallest number of skills, you're the CPR person.

01:21:55.500 You're like, okay, there's one struggling.

01:21:57.500 Go save that one.

01:21:58.500 Yeah, there's one.

01:21:59.500 I can save them.

01:22:00.500 If somebody comes into your little group of three, and you see that it's like a shy person

01:22:05.500 who's trying to get into the group, be the one who opens up.

01:22:10.500 Right?

01:22:11.500 Instead of being the one who keeps talking because you don't know what to do, open up your body.

01:22:16.500 And even sometimes if there's a little gap, introduce yourself to the new person.

01:22:23.500 Don't continue the conversation like they didn't exist.

01:22:26.500 Introduce yourself to the new person.

01:22:28.500 Because you saved them.

01:22:29.500 Have you ever come up to a group of people talking and they don't acknowledge your existence?

01:22:34.500 You have, right?

01:22:36.500 It's awful, isn't it?

01:22:38.500 It's the worst feeling.

01:22:40.500 It's like you don't exist.

01:22:42.500 Right?

01:22:43.500 So you can instantly change yourself from the person who's one of them to the person who's saving one of them.

01:22:51.500 Just go save them.

01:22:53.500 Yeah.

01:22:54.500 Here's another trick for social interaction.

01:22:58.500 Pick out the highest functioning social operator.

01:23:03.500 Might be an organizer.

01:23:05.500 But usually you can pick out, and it's usually female.

01:23:09.500 There's usually a dominant female like connector.

01:23:13.500 It depends on the group.

01:23:14.500 Of course, it could be male.

01:23:16.500 But if you find the dominant person who's like the real social connector, go right to that person.

01:23:22.500 Because the moment you meet that person, what do they do?

01:23:26.500 What does that person do?

01:23:28.500 They immediately introduce you to the three people standing next to her.

01:23:32.500 And then they say, I got a mingle.

01:23:34.500 I'll see you later.

01:23:35.500 And they're off.

01:23:36.500 And then you've got three people that you now met that you can now connect with again if you find yourself alone, etc.

01:23:43.500 Now, how much did that help?

01:23:46.500 It's my opinion that a simple reframe like that can change probably, I don't know, 20 to 50% of the people just immediately.

01:24:01.500 Just immediately.

01:24:02.500 Yeah.

01:24:03.500 Yeah.

01:24:04.500 You won't believe how much it works until you do it.

01:24:07.500 Right?

01:24:08.500 And let me make another case for why this will work.

01:24:13.500 Suppose I told you I'd like to pay you to go to a social event.

01:24:18.500 So you're not there because you want to.

01:24:20.500 I'm just going to pay you.

01:24:22.500 And I'd like you to get as many business cards as you can.

01:24:27.500 And nothing else matters.

01:24:29.500 I'm just going to pay you to get as many business cards.

01:24:32.500 Would you feel as embarrassed if you knew you were being paid to just sort of do a job?

01:24:38.500 And the answer is no.

01:24:40.500 Because you feel like, oh, I'm just doing a job.

01:24:42.500 Like there's not much social pressure because the only thing you're trying to do is get business cards.

01:24:48.500 You're just doing a job.

01:24:51.500 It's very easy to reframe a awkward situation into just mechanical.

01:24:58.500 So I reframed you from the victim into the savior.

01:25:02.500 And it was easy.

01:25:04.500 All you needed to do was have a little bit of skill that all the victims don't yet have.

01:25:08.500 Which is how to ask questions.

01:25:10.500 How to enter, how to introduce yourself.

01:25:13.500 And how to, you know, leave basically.

01:25:17.500 All right.

01:25:21.500 I hope that helped.

01:25:23.500 Here's the weirdest thing.

01:25:26.500 You remember that Kanye, or Ye as we like to call him now.

01:25:31.500 He got dropped by a number of apparel makers he was working with.

01:25:35.500 And one of them was Balenciaga.

01:25:38.500 And the weirdest thing happened this week with Balenciaga.

01:25:44.500 And I don't even know how to explain it.

01:25:47.500 Right?

01:25:48.500 Because if it is what it looks like, it blows my mind.

01:25:53.500 What it looks like is that they had an ad with little kids holding teddy bears that were dressed in like BDSM, like leather, like very sexualized.

01:26:09.500 Now, if that's all it was, I could imagine saying to myself, okay, maybe I'm imagining, you know, just because there's leather on a teddy bear, maybe it was just an unfortunate style choice.

01:26:28.500 And then the internet sleuths, they zoomed in on some other stuff in the scene.

01:26:34.500 And there's a document on the table that appears real that was a legal decision allowing pedophiles to, I don't know, talk in public or something like that.

01:26:50.500 So basically, they had pedophile-related documentation in the ad.

01:26:57.500 So if you add the leather sexual bear to the little kid to what could not have been an accident if it's real, if it's real, maybe it got photoshopped in, I don't know.

01:27:10.500 But if it's real, it's actually pedophiles operating in the open.

01:27:19.500 But could it be real?

01:27:24.500 I'm not there yet.

01:27:26.500 I'm not there.

01:27:28.500 Because the problem is the Scott Alexander problem.

01:27:31.500 Do you see it?

01:27:33.500 The Scott Alexander theory says if you see a story that blows your mind, like you say to yourself, my God, how could this be happening?

01:27:46.500 The answer is it isn't.

01:27:48.500 Almost always.

01:27:49.500 So maybe 95% of the time when you see a story this extraordinary, you'll find out later it's not true.

01:27:57.500 Right?

01:27:58.500 So start with the assumption there's a 95% chance there's something about this story that's just totally not true.

01:28:06.500 If I had to pick, I would pick that document on the table as the not true part.

01:28:13.500 I know people are saying that it's been confirmed, and maybe it's true.

01:28:18.500 So let me be very clear, it could be exactly what it looked like.

01:28:23.500 Yeah, it could be exactly what it looks like.

01:28:27.500 Because it looks exactly like it is.

01:28:29.500 But be aware, if you're going to be a sophisticated consumer, be aware that there are lots of things that look just like this.

01:28:38.500 Meaning an extraordinary story where you say, how could a dog build a spaceship?

01:28:44.500 That's impossible!

01:28:46.500 And then later you find out that no dog built a spaceship.

01:28:49.500 It was exactly what you thought.

01:28:51.500 It was impossible.

01:28:52.500 So most of the time, this kind of story turns out false.

01:28:56.500 Which is not to say that this one is false.

01:28:59.500 It looks like something's going on.

01:29:02.500 Right?

01:29:03.500 Jay, I'm not disagreeing with you.

01:29:05.500 I'm just saying, you know, don't let your head explode if you find out it's not true.

01:29:12.500 Right?

01:29:13.500 Right?

01:29:14.500 You've used that one before.

01:29:15.500 You've used that one before.

01:29:23.500 Handwritten letters?

01:29:24.500 Maybe.

01:29:25.500 Why is it, and related to this story, why is it that Elon Musk takes over Twitter and immediately he can get rid of the pedophile hashtags when apparently they've been operating in the open for years?

01:29:41.500 How do you explain that?

01:29:43.500 How do you explain that Elon Musk can make the pedophiles go away like effortlessly?

01:29:50.500 Well, maybe there was some effort.

01:29:52.500 But it hadn't happened before.

01:29:54.500 Now again, remember earlier I was saying that if you believe something's true, you'll be buried in evidence that you're right.

01:30:08.500 This looks like that, right?

01:30:11.500 If you're believing that there's a big pedophile problem, if that's your starting point, you will see it everywhere.

01:30:19.500 That doesn't mean it's true.

01:30:22.500 I'm sure there's a pedophile problem, but the size of it and whether it's in each story you see is what's in question.

01:30:29.500 Right?

01:30:30.500 If I had to guess, you know, it's easy to say, you know, it's Jack Dorsey, blah, blah, blah.

01:30:37.500 If I had to guess, I don't think Jack Dorsey had as much operating control over the details of Twitter as one imagines.

01:30:46.500 Remember, he was running two companies.

01:30:48.500 So he probably had, you know, a whole bunch of people doing the nuts and bolts at Twitter.

01:30:53.500 And maybe he may have been told they couldn't do anything about it.

01:30:58.500 You could easily imagine the scenario where, you know, I'm just speculating here.

01:31:04.500 You could imagine where Jack said, get rid of that pedo stuff.

01:31:07.500 And then they came back and said, oh, we tried really hard.

01:31:10.500 There's just nothing we can do.

01:31:12.500 And then, you know, maybe he tried a few more times and then they kept coming back.

01:31:16.500 Yeah, you know, they're so slippery.

01:31:19.500 We can't get them.

01:31:20.500 Or there's some reason we can't or whatever.

01:31:22.500 And then Elon comes in and just fires, you know, all those people.

01:31:26.500 And then it's easy.

01:31:28.500 It might be just that he fired the right people.

01:31:31.500 It could be nothing but that.

01:31:32.500 That's possible.

01:31:34.500 So the other possibility is that, you know, nothing is true in the news.

01:31:41.500 Charles Haywood, I don't know who he is, but on Twitter he did sort of a back of the envelope estimate

01:31:50.500 that Twitter should be extremely profitable almost immediately.

01:31:56.500 And the argument goes like this.

01:31:58.500 He looked into their financials and the vast majority of their expenses are people.

01:32:05.500 And he just reduced them by 75% or something.

01:32:09.500 And if you just do the basic math, how much money did they make?

01:32:13.500 And here you'd have to assume that some of the advertising comes back

01:32:17.500 just because advertisers go to where there are people.

01:32:21.500 And you'd have to assume that maybe the $80 thing also is good.

01:32:25.500 So just with those, you know, minor revenue changes, if you make an assumption that 80% of the cost was personnel

01:32:33.500 and then you take, you know, 50% to 75% of that cost away, you're instantly profitable.

01:32:40.500 And not just a little bit.

01:32:42.500 You know, Charles Haywood's estimate is that they would have one of the best profit margins in all of technology.

01:32:51.500 And it would be like right away.

01:32:53.500 And then it would just start spewing cash forever.

01:32:57.500 Now, I'm not going to go so far as to say that's true.

01:33:02.500 But I have to say my own math sense was already there.

01:33:08.500 Like in my own head, I was still thinking, well, it's got to be mostly people expense.

01:33:15.500 I mean, to me, I was leaning in that direction that he may have already solved for profitability.

01:33:23.500 It might already be done.

01:33:26.500 And he may have actually made it more efficient by getting rid of all the dead wood and keeping the superstars.

01:33:33.500 Now, of course, he says he's keeping the good people.

01:33:37.500 But, you know, that's subjective.

01:33:40.500 I guess the Stormy Daniels campaign violation thing is being renewed.

01:33:46.500 Does that tell you that they've run out of material?

01:33:51.500 If you're reviving the Stormy Daniels case, that sort of tells me you don't have anything.

01:33:57.500 When I tell you that Trump is the best vetted president of all time, it's this.

01:34:06.500 It's this.

01:34:07.500 And I'm not going to defend anything he did with Stormy Daniels.

01:34:11.500 It probably was exactly what you saw.

01:34:14.500 But if that's all they have, that's all they have?

01:34:18.500 My God.

01:34:20.500 Could be a case of just everybody's doing everything they can and that's just what one person had.

01:34:27.500 All right.

01:34:29.500 I read an article in something called The Conversation.

01:34:34.500 It's a publication.

01:34:36.500 By Beth Daly.

01:34:38.500 And she wrote that there might be a way to test that we live in a simulation.

01:34:44.500 Now, does that sound like something I've said before?

01:34:47.500 I don't know who Beth is, but the way she writes, one suspect she may have been exposed to some of my material,

01:34:54.500 but I don't know.

01:34:55.500 Maybe.

01:34:56.500 Maybe just people think the same way.

01:34:58.500 Well, here's a little tour of how this simulation came about.

01:35:03.500 This is from Beth's story, which is quite good, actually.

01:35:07.500 I recommend it.

01:35:08.500 I tweeted it so you can find it in my Twitter feed.

01:35:11.500 So she says in 1989, the legendary physicist John Archibald Wheeler, so he had this idea that the universe wasn't just matter,

01:35:22.500 that there was something about the way we think about it or observe the universe that interacts with the matter.

01:35:28.500 Of course, you know, quantum, quantum theory, blah, blah, blah, supports that.

01:35:35.500 So as early as the 80s, people were saying, hey, maybe reality is not just stuff.

01:35:41.500 Maybe there's something about the way we think about this stuff that interacts with the stuff.

01:35:46.500 So there's something that's thought plus matter or maybe it's all thought or something.

01:35:51.500 Then by 2003, Nick Bostrom from Oxford University, he came up with a simulation hypothesis.

01:36:00.500 There's highly probable that we're a simulation because someday there will be lots of them.

01:36:06.500 And what are the odds that we're the original?

01:36:09.500 All right, let's get rid of you.

01:36:13.500 We've got a couple of assholes here.

01:36:16.500 One asshole gone.

01:36:18.500 Boom.

01:36:19.500 Anybody else?

01:36:23.500 Come on.

01:36:24.500 There's another one here.

01:36:25.500 I know you're here.

01:36:26.500 I'm going to get you.

01:36:27.500 All right.

01:36:28.500 We'll get you later.

01:36:29.500 All right.

01:36:30.500 So then, all right, that's 2003.

01:36:34.500 So the simulation idea came about.

01:36:36.500 Then there was a suggestion later that we could be a giant quantum computer.

01:36:44.500 And then as the story goes, in 2016, I think maybe it's the first time that Musk said it.

01:36:49.500 I don't know when he started thinking it.

01:36:51.500 But he concluded that we're most likely a simulation.

01:36:55.500 So from 1989 to 2016, people have been noodling about this.

01:36:59.500 Now what's left out?

01:37:01.500 There was my book in the 90s, in which I predicted that the nature of reality would be completely

01:37:10.500 revised in our lifetime, which is what we're watching.

01:37:14.500 The simulation theory, I didn't mention it in specifics, but it is what I predicted.

01:37:20.500 That there's something about our consciousness and the interaction with the material that's

01:37:28.500 the real thing.

01:37:29.500 All right.

01:37:31.500 Now here's a hypothesis of how you could test that we're in a simulation.

01:37:35.500 So there's a physicist, late physicist John Barrow.

01:37:40.500 He argued that if we're computation or we're software, that if we're software, there would

01:37:48.500 be necessarily little flurbs and imperfections.

01:37:55.500 And that the little imperfections would build up over time.

01:37:58.500 And that the programmer, if there was one, would have to correct the simulation every

01:38:04.500 now and then, because it would build up errors, and then it would be like a software reboot.

01:38:11.500 And that we would notice it.

01:38:14.500 That there would be a period of time where, for example, the laws of physics stop working

01:38:19.500 for a minute.

01:38:21.500 Would that be funny?

01:38:23.500 Like, just for like a minute, the laws of physics stop working.

01:38:27.500 Now, I guess we'd still have gravity, right?

01:38:29.500 We wouldn't fly into space.

01:38:31.500 But that would be one thing to look for.

01:38:36.500 But I'm wondering if the pandemic doesn't satisfy that.

01:38:39.500 Or the Great Reset.

01:38:41.500 I feel like we are in the middle of some kind of a software update.

01:38:44.500 If we're a simulation, this is definitely a software update.

01:38:47.500 Because everything is changing.

01:38:49.500 Right?

01:38:50.500 Literally everything.

01:38:51.500 The way we think about everything, the way we do everything, is all different.

01:38:56.500 It does feel like a software update.

01:39:00.500 All right.

01:39:02.500 Ladies and gentlemen, I believe I've improved your life and informed you.

01:39:07.500 Probably the best live stream you've ever seen in your whole life.

01:39:11.500 Peak experience, really.

01:39:13.500 How was it for you?

01:39:15.500 That's just how I think it was for you.

01:39:17.500 Yeah.

01:39:19.500 How many people are going to try that reframe for your social anxiety?

01:39:24.500 To walk into the room as the solution and not the problem?

01:39:28.500 You're going to be amazed.

01:39:30.500 You're going to be amazed how well it works.

01:39:33.500 All right.

01:39:36.500 Someone's enjoying a cigarette.

01:39:39.500 Now, yes.

01:39:40.500 Makes perfect sense.

01:39:41.500 No, tomorrow's not Thanksgiving, is it?

01:39:48.500 It better not be.

01:39:49.500 Yeah.

01:39:50.500 Best show ever.

01:39:51.500 I think so.

01:39:52.500 I think I hit all the notes and I'm leaving you better off.

01:39:55.500 So I'm going to go do some other things.

01:39:58.500 And you're all awesome.

01:40:01.500 And you're probably wondering, am I going to do a live stream on Thanksgiving?

01:40:07.500 What's the answer?

01:40:10.500 Am I going to do a live stream on Thanksgiving?

01:40:13.500 Of course.

01:40:14.500 Of course.

01:40:15.500 Would I let you down?

01:40:17.500 No.

01:40:18.500 No, no.

01:40:19.500 We're definitely going to be.

01:40:20.500 Same time, same place.

01:40:21.500 But tomorrow's just a regular day, so I'll see you then too.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - November 22, 2022

Episode 1935 Scott Adams： Hilarious News. I'll Teach You How To Make A 3-D Printer Out Of Cow Manure

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript