Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1949 Scott Adams： I Think Every Story In The News Today Is Fake Including Scientific Studies

00:00:00.000 fast processing ability of computing, and when it finishes, it will reach a model of reality

00:00:07.640 incomprehensibly different from our own. AI will have a model of reality incomprehensibly different

00:00:17.520 from our own. It will be far superior. Just like the self-trained Go, AI discovered tactics

00:00:23.880 unavailable to the Go, AI-trained, unhuman examples. What happens then is anyone's guess.

00:00:35.180 He goes, but here's another question. Has that happened already? Billions of years ago?

00:00:42.700 Is that the simulation? The universal mind? Is that God? Are we the thoughts of an AI trying

00:00:55.160 to figure out from scratch? Are we the thoughts of an AI trying to figure things out from scratch?

00:01:06.580 It's God's debris. We are God. We're reassembling. We're reassembling. And the odds that it's

00:01:22.820 the first time we've ever reassembled into a God-like entity is very low. We've been here

00:01:30.160 before, and probably were created by people who've been here before. The odds of you being

00:01:36.380 first, do you think the odds are good that you just happen to be alive in that tiny little slice

00:01:44.940 of 13.8 billion years where computers became sentient? You just happen to be alive then.

00:01:53.620 Do you think so? There's not a chance. Well, there's a chance. It's a really small one. Really,

00:02:00.100 really small one. All right. Well, I just put that out there. I believe that AI, as we learn

00:02:10.100 about AI, is going to change our understanding of reality so fundamentally. That's what Jason

00:02:17.300 was saying. By the way, Jason is a hypnotist, which is important to the story. I guarantee

00:02:23.840 the hypnotists do not see reality the way you do. You just can't learn hypnosis and go on like

00:02:31.280 before. It changes everything. All right. Some other stuff. There's a study that says that eating

00:02:38.560 ultra-processed foods makes you stupid. Basically, in your older age, it'll give you dementia and shit.

00:02:46.080 So eating natural, healthy, unprocessed food, good for you. Eating too much ultra-processed foods makes

00:02:55.740 you stupid. Do you believe that? How many of you believe that to be true? Well, here's what I say.

00:03:07.940 If you had an automobile, would it make any difference if the gasoline and the oil you put into it

00:03:14.700 were a high quality or a low quality? Would you notice the difference? Well, at some point, you would.

00:03:22.500 At some point. I mean, if it's a little bit of difference, you won't. But yeah, if you put a sludge

00:03:27.620 in your car, it's not going to run. Why would... Analogies do not make an argument. Analogies simply allow you

00:03:38.560 to explain something efficiently. So don't believe me because of my analogy. That's not the convincing

00:03:46.500 part. The analogy part has no persuasion ability. It's just explaining what my point is.

00:03:53.240 All right. So what was I talking about? Oh. Let me ask you this. Common sense-wise, don't you think

00:04:01.800 that eating better is going to make you operate in every way better? Does anybody disagree with that?

00:04:08.780 There's no disagreement that the higher the quality of your fuel, the better your biological machine

00:04:17.100 will operate. Everybody knows that, right? So if you see a study that agrees with what you know is

00:04:21.600 obviously true, probably a pretty good study, right? Probably a pretty good study. No.

00:04:28.720 So the first thing you have to know is all studies of this type are sketchy. All of them.

00:04:37.160 So this is in the category of things you probably shouldn't believe. Like, your first impression should be,

00:04:45.140 yeah, probably not. Now, I'm not saying that the conclusion is wrong. I actually think the conclusion is right.

00:04:52.480 I just don't think the science is valid. Like, how they got to the right answer is sketchy. Here's why.

00:04:58.720 Do you think there's anything else that people who eat a lot of ultra-processed foods have in common

00:05:05.560 with each other? Anything? Yeah. Well, it's like everything. It's like everything. Like, if you give me

00:05:14.600 a group of people who eat ultra-processed foods and then say, here's another group of people who don't

00:05:20.720 do that, do you know what ways those two would be different? Fucking everything. Everything.

00:05:28.680 Literally everything. For one thing, the ultra-processed food people would weigh more.

00:05:37.400 I mean, obesity alone probably has some impact on stuff. How about there's an income difference?

00:05:43.720 How about the fact that if you're eating food that's bad for you, that's already an indicator of how smart you are?

00:05:50.640 Not completely, because people don't have, you know, the income or the options to eat healthy food.

00:05:58.360 But certainly there'd be a correlation. There's certainly a correlation between how smart you are

00:06:06.040 and whether you eat food that's good for you. I mean, it's not one-to-one, but it's a pretty strong correlation.

00:06:11.360 Yeah. Not controlling for things like exercise. Now, I didn't even bother looking at the study.

00:06:18.280 Do you know why? Because it's just not credible. Just like on the surface, there's nothing that study

00:06:24.680 could tell me that would change my mind, because I don't know who funded it. Most studies are not

00:06:30.960 reliable. You know, you'd have to see it reproduced a bunch of times. You know, did pharma make it?

00:06:37.360 Who knows? It doesn't seem to be a pharma thing. All right. Here's another one. There's a meta study

00:06:43.800 showing that soy doesn't have any effect on male hormones. So if you ever believed that soy

00:06:51.920 was affecting your male hormones, this meta-analysis says you were wrong. So that's credible, right? 0.99

00:07:00.200 Do you believe a meta-analysis that? No, it's just bullshit. Can you spot the trick? All right. I

00:07:11.680 won't tell you anything else about it, but see if you can spot the trick. There's a meta-study

00:07:16.760 analysis that says soy doesn't affect your male hormones. Go. Without even looking at this study,

00:07:25.300 what is the trick? Number one, meta-analysis is not credible. How many of you already knew that?

00:07:35.020 A meta-analysis by its nature means that somebody decided what studies were in and what studies were

00:07:42.040 not going to be in, and that's what decided the answer probably. It wasn't the meta-study. It was a

00:07:48.660 person who said it's going to do the meta-study that decided what it was going to be by deciding which

00:07:53.240 studies are good enough to be included and which ones are so bad. Those are too bad. I can't include

00:07:59.920 that in my meta-study. As long as you have that subjective part of the process, then anything

00:08:06.800 that comes out the other end is still subjective. So as soon as it says meta-study, you can discount it.

00:08:13.840 Not discount it for being false. If it's a meta-study, you discount it for being convincing or credible.

00:08:22.020 So it could be right. It's just not something you should believe because they say it's right.

00:08:29.660 Here's the second thing. Did they study the right thing? How many of you thought that soy was directly

00:08:38.040 affecting the amount of your male hormones? That wasn't really the problem, was it? Wasn't it

00:08:44.880 something about soy would mimic hormones? It's the mimicking of them that was, yeah, mimicking the

00:08:52.260 estrogen, right? Mimicking estrogen would not necessarily affect your male hormones, would it?

00:08:59.880 It would just give you something that's artificially like estrogen. Now that's the thing people worried

00:09:06.160 about. So they, doesn't this look like ivermectin all over again? Doesn't it? Let's study ivermectin

00:09:13.840 the way nobody will ever use it. Right? So there, there should be some, um,

00:09:24.080 should be some word or descriptor for studies that look like they're done to make you less informed.

00:09:29.920 This looks like a study that was done to intentionally make you less informed.

00:09:36.000 Because if you just read it quickly, you'd say, oh, that was, that was just a rumor that eating

00:09:41.440 soy had any effect on your male female balance, I guess. Yeah. Now I'm not going to say that soy has

00:09:49.520 a deleterious effect because I don't want to get sued, but this definitely doesn't prove that it doesn't.

00:09:57.640 Do you all agree with me? That the, this is signaling as, as hard as you can, this is not real.

00:10:06.280 Now here's the third question. Who funded it?

00:10:10.920 Am I wrong that there's basically one entity that controls all the soy in the United States?

00:10:18.360 Who is it? Archer Daniels? Who, who is it? Was the, um,

00:10:23.160 um, there's a, uh, a patent on the specific soy that is everywhere in the United States, right?

00:10:32.760 Anyway, so I don't, Monsanto? Monsanto, you're telling me? Okay. So I don't know enough about that.

00:10:38.920 But if you were going to guess who would fund a study that would find out that, that soy is good

00:10:47.640 for you in every way, who could possibly want to pay for that? Would it be just a well-meaning person

00:10:56.120 who was curious? Right. To me, it's obvious that if you don't know who paid for it, you should just

00:11:04.120 ignore this one. If anytime you see a study that says something you could buy is really not bad for

00:11:12.520 you, it's good for you. Don't believe any of those, unless you know who paid for it. That might, that

00:11:19.800 might make a difference. But if you don't know who paid for it, don't believe any of them.

00:11:25.800 For years, I've been telling you, maybe 20 years now, I've been telling you that one day,

00:11:30.760 for sure, you would learn that the studies that say a little bit of alcohol is good for you,

00:11:36.200 that you would find out those are not real. Because all of those kinds of studies end up

00:11:41.080 being not real. They're all pushed by somebody who has a money interest.

00:11:47.560 So I'm not making any specific accusations about Monsanto. I'm saying that as a

00:11:52.440 wise consumer of information, you should just assume there's something a little sketchy about this one.

00:12:01.000 Here's another study. There's a study that showed that marijuana does not reduce pain,

00:12:08.440 and that it's a placebo effect. Because if you give people placebos and tell them,

00:12:13.160 hey, this is full of cannabinoids or whatever it is, and one that really is, one that's active and

00:12:19.960 one's not, you get a very similar result. Like 60, like two thirds of the people thought that they

00:12:26.120 had pain relief, even when they didn't have the right drug. Now, what is the lesson you should learn

00:12:34.200 from this study that says that weed doesn't reduce pain? It's a placebo effect. What is the conclusion

00:12:39.800 of this? Let me tell you. The conclusion is you should never let people who do not smoke weed

00:12:48.120 weed do a study about weed, because this is so fucking wrong. But let me tell you something

00:12:57.080 so definitely true that I will allow no debate on this topic. Marijuana reduces pain.

00:13:08.200 I'm not going to have an argument on that. I mean, I've put this stuff in my body like almost every day

00:13:17.000 for, you know, what, 50 fucking years or something. It reduces pain. It's not in my mind.

00:13:25.000 It's definitely not in my mind. Now, to imagine, I mean, is there anybody here who is a regular user of

00:13:36.200 marijuana who would put any credibility in a study that says it's all in your head, you're not really

00:13:41.800 getting rid of your pain? Is there anybody who would believe that who is a regular user? No. Zero people

00:13:48.600 believe that, right? So one of my one of my bullshit filters is this. If your science says something

00:13:57.400 that you could observe in the real world, that's a pretty good sign that the science might be right,

00:14:04.360 right? You're also maybe affected by, you know, confirmation bias, but it's a good sign that the science

00:14:11.480 matches what you can see with your own eyes. For example, science says that smoking tobacco

00:14:18.200 can give you lung cancer. And do you not know plenty of people who have lung cancer and smoked?

00:14:25.160 And you know, probably zero or far fewer people who have lung cancer and never smoked. So that's a

00:14:32.040 perfect example of where your observation matches the science perfectly. So feel pretty confident about

00:14:38.920 that. But I don't think you can find any marijuana users who won't tell you, good lord, of course it

00:14:46.440 reduces pain. Not only does it reduce pain, it doesn't instantly. Have you ever had a stomach

00:14:52.200 ache? Smoked some weed? Do you know how long it takes weed to get rid of a stomach ache?

00:14:59.800 It's instant. Weed is known to be an anti-inflammatory. What the hell does an anti-inflammatory do?

00:15:07.080 It reduces your inflammation. There's no way that this study is valid. It doesn't match 50 years of

00:15:18.280 consistent observation. It's ridiculous. All right. There's some weird stories coming out of the Tim

00:15:28.200 Poole universe. You know, Tim Poole, very popular podcaster. Here are some things that I've heard

00:15:36.840 today. I don't know the backstory. I'm all confused about the backstory. But it's just fascinating

00:15:43.000 that so many things could come out of one little universe. So Tim Poole tweeted that there's a nine

00:15:50.440 millimeter bullet lodged in his kitchen now. And something about all the rhetoric. Now, what?

00:16:01.800 Does anybody know why there's a nine millimeter bullet lodged in his kitchen?

00:16:08.360 Did somebody shoot it to his house?

00:16:09.880 He fired it and shot at burglars. All right. So we don't know. All right. I see a bunch of.

00:16:20.120 All right. So I'm just going to leave that as don't know.

00:16:25.240 And he said, I can't say I'm surprised this happened after the wave of doxing and threats made

00:16:29.400 against us. Why does Tim Poole get a lot of threats?

00:16:33.160 Those of you who watch Tim's podcast and also watch me, does he say things that are that much more

00:16:41.560 provocative than what I say? Because I don't get that. I don't get that many death threats.

00:16:47.080 Well, what would be an example of something he says that's, oh, just by having yay on? You think

00:16:51.480 that's what it is? Oh, his guess. Oh, probably his guess. Yeah.

00:16:56.040 Yeah. Maybe it's his guess. Anyway.

00:17:05.400 And then he reports that he got swatted again. So being swatted means somebody illegitimately

00:17:12.360 calls the police and says you better send the SWAT team to some location. And then it's a fake call.

00:17:19.400 There's no problem there. But the reason you do it is to it's either a prank or it's just the worst

00:17:25.160 dirty trick in the world because somebody could get killed. And apparently this has happened a

00:17:29.960 number of times now. I don't know what the number is, but several times to Tim Poole. Now

00:17:38.920 there's some kind of bullshit to the story and I don't know what it is.

00:17:42.920 How many of you believe that the same SWAT team would be deployed multiple times to a place that's now

00:17:50.680 known for hoaxes? Now, I know what you're going to say. You're going to say the police have to show up

00:17:57.480 because it might be the one time it's true. And especially since there've been some break-ins and

00:18:02.440 other things. Right. But don't you think by now that the police would just call Tim on his cell phone

00:18:09.320 and say, uh, we're getting a report. Are you all good?

00:18:13.800 Now, maybe they need to make sure that Tim, you know, is not under threat of, you know, being shot if

00:18:19.960 he sends the wrong message. But he could have like a secret message with the SWAT team and say,

00:18:25.640 yes, if I say the words everything's fine, that means it's not. So, deploy. You know, something

00:18:33.480 like that. I mean, do you think that Tim Poole has not worked something out with the actual SWAT

00:18:39.480 so that they're both not inconvenienced again? They just let the same problem happen over and

00:18:45.320 over again? Well, there's something wrong with the story, right? You're saying Tim did negotiate

00:18:50.840 with them and it didn't make any difference? Well, here's what I think might be wrong with the story.

00:18:57.400 It could be that being SWATed is being used too generally. Could it be that they show up and

00:19:04.440 then knock on the door? If they knock on the door and they don't have their weapons drawn,

00:19:11.400 is that being SWATed? Because that's what I'd do. If I were the SWAT team, I'd knock. I wouldn't enter

00:19:18.360 if I'd known there had been a bunch of, you know, fake calls. There's video. There's video of the

00:19:25.800 early ones. But if one happened yesterday, isn't there more to know about this? There's something

00:19:32.680 missing with the story. Would you agree there's something missing in the story? There's something

00:19:38.040 missing. Do you think no? You think that they just keep deploying over and over again and they can't

00:19:44.840 figure out a way to stop this problem from happening? Like the SWAT and Tim working together

00:19:51.000 with all of their intelligence, can't figure out a way to make this stop happening. No, I'm sorry.

00:19:57.720 There's something missing in the story. There's something totally missing. I don't know what it is.

00:20:05.960 So I tweeted this yesterday. See if you agree. Now, California is recommended. They haven't

00:20:11.800 decided yet, but there's a recommendation from a committee to pay slavery reparations

00:20:18.600 to the black descendants of slavery in the United States. And I asked this question. I said,

00:20:26.360 should California slavery reparations be extended to include victims of reverse discrimination

00:20:34.200 who have no connection to plantation owners under the theory that they're all victims of the same people?

00:20:39.160 Now, if descendants of slaves get reparations because the plantation owners did things that

00:20:47.960 caused them to do less well in life, that's the reason for reparations. But those same plantation owners

00:20:56.120 put into motion a series of events through racism that caused me to lose two careers. So two different

00:21:04.600 times in my corporate career, I was told that because I was white and male, I couldn't be promoted.

00:21:12.120 They told me directly. I'm not reading between the lines. They said that. You're white and male, 0.97

00:21:16.280 we can't promote you. Now, should I get reparations? Because the cause of that is not black America, 1.00

00:21:25.800 is it? Who am I going to blame? Should I blame black people for being also victims?

00:21:35.480 I'm just as much a victim of those plantations of owning fucking racists as a lot of people.

00:21:44.520 I'm not competing, right? So if you're saying, it's worse for black people, okay. 1.00

00:21:50.680 I'm not going to say my situation is worse than everybody else's. I don't know. I'm just saying

00:21:56.040 that there was cost. There was substantial, substantial economic cost to me that is a ripple

00:22:04.840 effect directly from the slave owners. So why are you discriminating against me for my color?

00:22:12.600 I don't get reparations. I'm just as much. I'm a victim. I won't say just as much. I'm a victim too,

00:22:20.760 of the same people. So if plantation owners victimize black people, black people will get 0.95

00:22:28.920 reparations because they're black and connected to that event. But I, because I'm white, also directly

00:22:36.520 connected to that same, same event. Nothing, because I'm white. I don't, I don't see how that's 0.89

00:22:43.960 appropriate. Embrace and amplify. Yes. So Harbeet Dillon is, looks like she's in the running to try to be 1.00

00:22:54.760 the RNC chair to replace, uh, Ronna McDonald, McDaniel, Ronna McDonald. And yeah, not Ronald McDonald.

00:23:04.520 That's totally, although that's a weird coincidence. Um, and here's my comment on

00:23:14.760 Harbeet Dillon running for the RNC. I think she's got a good chance. She has a great reputation,

00:23:21.400 especially on social media. But let me ask you this. Could this even be possible if Twitter did

00:23:28.280 not exist? Huh? Do you think we would even know who Harbeet Dillon is? No. Her, her ability to be 1.00

00:23:38.040 in the mix for this high, high ranking job is entirely because she's great on Twitter. 0.99

00:23:45.240 Am I right? If you follow her, you know what I'm talking about, right? She's great on Twitter. 0.98

00:23:52.280 She's, she's like a, you know, major league player. Like she knows how to use Twitter like a, 0.96

00:23:59.160 like a musical instrument. She plays it really well. And now she does also, you know, good work on behalf

00:24:04.760 of Republicans in the real world of election stuff, et cetera. But I would say that primarily

00:24:12.600 she's in the running because of Twitter. So think about the, the role of Twitter. 0.89

00:24:21.000 I mean, the Twitter really is, I mean, makes it, here's one of the things Twitter does. It allows

00:24:28.360 um, competence to rise up outside of the normal structure, right? So the reason, the reason Mike

00:24:38.600 Cernovich has a big voice is because he does it well. That's it. That's it. Twitter allowed

00:24:46.680 Mike Cernovich to go from, you know, semi obscurity. He had a book out, but you didn't know him until

00:24:53.240 very high, high visibility because he's just really good at communicating and good on Twitter,

00:24:59.160 et cetera. Same with me. I've got, uh, probably by the end of the today, I'll have about 800,000

00:25:05.800 followers. Maybe a hundred thousand were because I do Dilbert, right? So I get a little boost because

00:25:12.760 of that. Probably the other 700,000 are because I did something right on Twitter and people said,

00:25:18.360 oh, I want to see some more of that. So I don't think you can understate how important Twitter is

00:25:26.760 for allowing some, some types of people who have something good to say, or at least something people

00:25:32.920 want to hear. It allows us to rise up through the noise. Yeah. So that's, that's a positive.

00:25:42.200 Anyway, good luck to her. I think she'd be great at that job. 1.00

00:25:50.920 So Axios has an interesting article about the fact that the political right is being very influenced by

00:25:58.280 people who are not Republicans or at least didn't start out as Republicans. So here are the examples

00:26:04.200 they give. They give, of course, Matt Taibbi, who, uh, you know, was part of the, uh, release of the

00:26:11.960 Twitter gate stuff. He's considered a lefty who's sort of veering more right, according to, you know,

00:26:19.000 observers, not according to him. Uh, Barry Weiss, another example, somebody who is New York Times reporter,

00:26:24.920 now more likely to say things that are sort of right friendly. Glenn Greenwald, famous lefty,

00:26:32.680 but is going hard against the Democrats for, you know, undemocratic stuff. Um, what about

00:26:38.920 Musk himself? No, now Axios mentioned those three and I thought, oh, that's a good starter point. But

00:26:45.800 think about how many people were identified with the left, but now are prominent voices on the right.

00:26:52.840 Michael Schellenberger, I forgot about him. Michael Schellenberger was on the left,

00:27:00.200 uh, but he identifies with energy, let's say energy policy, which is more identifiable with the right.

00:27:07.720 Right? So I don't know, his social policy is probably still whatever it was, but energy policy,

00:27:14.120 definitely moving over the way. Dave Rubin, thank you. Dave Rubin, not only associated with the left and then

00:27:21.160 now more associated with, I'd say independent, but I think his critics would say with the right.

00:27:26.200 Uh, but, but think about this. Uh, Dave Rubin created the locals platform, right? He's the founder there.

00:27:35.400 Uh, Musk, and that has Twitter control. Uh, then Substack. Substack is allowing, you know,

00:27:43.960 Matt Taibbi, Barry Weiss, Glenn Greenwald to have bigger voices. Uh, how about, uh, Dershowitz?

00:27:51.080 Alan Dershowitz. Associated with the left, but when the, the topics were such that he could no longer

00:27:59.160 do that, he went where the law goes and the law was leaning right. So he just followed the law.

00:28:06.440 We'll get to that. Tim Pool. Now, Tim Pool, uh, I hate to characterize other people if it's not the

00:28:12.600 way they would characterize themselves. Now, I believe Tim Pool is independent. Give me a fact

00:28:18.600 check as I go. I believe he's an independent, um, but maybe socially he leans more left than his

00:28:25.800 audience. Would you say that's fair? But not on all issues. That's what an independent is. He's an

00:28:31.960 independent, so he can, he can pick and choose. And he does. Um, what about, uh, Trump? Trump was a

00:28:39.160 Democrat, right? So think about the impact that the defectors have had. Russell Brand. Now, I don't

00:28:48.040 know if Russell Brand would say that his politics have moved. Oh, yay. Yay. Right. Yay. Perfect example.

00:28:56.280 Uh, Tulsi Gabbard. Joe Rogan? Maybe. I'll give you a maybe on Joe Rogan, because I'm not sure I knew

00:29:04.600 what he ever was before. But I, but I think Joe Rogan's probably socially liberal. Uh, Bill Barr's

00:29:12.520 sort of an edge case. I see him more as an independent. I see you saying Jordan Peterson,

00:29:17.560 but I don't know. I don't know that Jordan Peterson was left-leaning before. I see you,

00:29:25.880 I see you mentioning Jack Dorsey, and I would put him also in the independent category,

00:29:31.880 meaning Jack Dorsey can pick and choose from whichever side makes sense. So I don't know that

00:29:39.000 he moved. I don't know that, I'm not aware of any transition, but maybe. Turley, I don't know.

00:29:46.280 Turley is, I don't know if his, if he moved, right? Uh, and then as you mentioned, another example is me,

00:29:54.360 right? I'm another example of somebody with, you know, left-leading history and voting,

00:29:59.800 and, uh, have now, you know, moved to the right. Tyrus? I don't know about Tyrus. I don't know what

00:30:06.920 he was before. But if you look at, uh, just the people that I mentioned, how much has this group

00:30:15.240 changed politics? It's a lot, right? I feel like the narrative is largely created by this group.

00:30:26.760 Am I wrong? There, there seem to be usually two narratives coming out of the right. There's

00:30:36.600 usually like a weaker one and a stronger one. I feel like the stronger narratives are coming from

00:30:41.480 this independent group who is, let's say, uh, friendly or at least open to right-leaning positions.

00:30:53.640 Yeah, no, don't call them the IDW. I hate that. Oh, how about the Weinsteins? Were they

00:31:01.800 left-leaning? Yeah, I think, yeah, this is, it's always so dangerous to characterize other people.

00:31:08.120 But I believe, I believe they would characterize themselves as left-leaning,

00:31:13.080 but open to, you know, examining things on the right with an independent, independent eye.

00:31:18.760 Yeah. Now, had you ever put it all together, how many, how many of the, uh, voices for the right

00:31:30.440 are actually people who didn't start there? Classical liberal, yeah.

00:31:40.200 Yeah, yeah, Turley is more like a constitution guy. I don't think you can really place him left or

00:31:45.240 right. And that's why you love him, right? I mean, Turley is just a national treasure.

00:31:50.760 Because I haven't seen him go wrong yet. I haven't seen him buy into a, a conspiracy theory.

00:31:56.280 Have you? Have you seen him be wrong about a conspiracy theory? I haven't. And he sticks to the facts really well.

00:32:05.800 All right. Dan, Dan Bilzerian is, all right, well, that's going pretty far down into the examples.

00:32:12.920 Um, but remember, I've been telling you that the so-called internet dads were going to be the

00:32:19.720 growing power. Let me ask you this. Now, forget about whether they're dads in real life.

00:32:27.000 Would you consider this group to be operating like internet dads? And what I mean by that is,

00:32:34.040 a little less political and more like trying to be useful.

00:32:37.960 Uh, the people who just work for a big publication, they kind of have to stick with the publication's,

00:32:45.640 you know, um, let's say, intentions. But I would say this is a group of genuine independent thinkers.

00:32:54.920 But the independent thinkers are, I think, the strongest voice on the right now. Am I wrong?

00:32:59.960 Jack Murphy's one? Did Jack Murphy also shift right over time? Yeah. So, um, you know, and again,

00:33:12.840 I'm not being sexist because I would put Barry Weiss in the, in the category of an internet dad.

00:33:18.040 I'm just using dad as a generic. All right. Uh, Musk said on, uh, some event the other day,

00:33:24.600 uh, that there is a risk. He said, uh, frankly, the risk of something bad happening to himself or

00:33:31.240 literally even being shot is quite significant, which I agree with by the way. I think he's at a

00:33:37.640 level where he is physical security is an issue. He says, I'm definitely not going to be doing any

00:33:43.320 open air car parades. I read this before, but I didn't think about it. I'm not going to do any

00:33:54.280 open air car parades. Let me put it that way. It's not, it's not that hard to kill me if somebody

00:34:00.840 wanted to. So hopefully they don't. Maybe I should be more worried than I am. But I think generally,

00:34:09.020 if you do right by the people, you have the people on your side. Well, having the people

00:34:13.820 on your side isn't going to stop a crazy person. All right. So here's the first thing you need to

00:34:22.940 know. The first thing you need to know is that Elon Musk isn't going to tell you his full security

00:34:28.860 situation. Am I right? Like if he had trained bodyguards who follow him everywhere, which I

00:34:35.260 don't think he does, but if he does, he's not going to say it because you want all of your security

00:34:43.580 situation to be as opaque as possible because you want that to be a surprise. Now, I have a very

00:34:51.580 similar opinion to his because like him, I get death threats, of course. Public people always do.

00:34:59.180 And I do have people show up at my door. Like people can find me pretty easily. So I'm very

00:35:07.260 killable. I'm not trying to wish this into existence, by the way. But I don't worry about it.

00:35:17.420 Is that weird? Like if I were to, you know, do an essay on what my risk is, I would say it's high.

00:35:25.340 It's pretty high. It's pretty high. But I don't actually spend any time worrying about it.

00:35:31.180 And here's why I think, you know, it has to do with being irrational, of course. But here's why I

00:35:37.580 think. I think I can't accept that I live in that world. Like I know it intellectually, I live in that

00:35:45.660 world. But I've created a bubble that I live in. That's my little artificial bubble of things I

00:35:52.940 believe to be true. And I have very intentionally put in my artificial bubble that I'm safe.

00:35:59.100 Even though I'm not. But yet I live it artificially like I am. And the reason is, I just don't want

00:36:05.260 to live in the other world. Does that make sense? I don't want to live in the world where I'm afraid

00:36:10.380 to walk outside. Because there's not much I can do about like, like, like must says, if somebody's

00:36:16.860 really wants to get to you, there's not much you can do. Not much you can do. Yeah.

00:36:25.260 People like me live forever? Oh, you're so right. I will live forever in AI.

00:36:32.140 But there was an article about Musk saying he's not suicidal. And he responded on Twitter to the

00:36:36.940 article with a little laughy, winking face, meaning that, you know, he's having fun.

00:36:42.780 All right, let's talk about Trump saying he would ignore the Constitution. And what part of that is

00:36:49.900 true and what is not? All right. So let me remind you what he said. And then I'll tell you that he

00:36:55.500 updated it by saying he does not want to. It is fake news that he wants to terminate the Constitution.

00:37:02.380 So he did clarify. And we'll talk about his clarification. But I want to remind you what he did say on a

00:37:07.420 a truth social post. This is part of what he said. He said, quote,

00:37:12.380 a massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations and articles,

00:37:19.500 even those found in the Constitution. Now, many people, including me, read that as, wait a minute.

00:37:27.420 You want to get rid of the parts of the Constitution you don't like?

00:37:30.380 Part you don't like? And other people said, no, no, Scott. People are saying he wants to get rid

00:37:43.260 of the Constitution. No, no, no. He just wants to make sure that the Constitution was followed.

00:37:51.260 Would anybody agree with that interpretation? That when he said,

00:37:54.860 when he said it allows for the termination of rules, regulations and articles, even those found

00:38:01.980 in the Constitution, that he's not saying that anything about the Constitution should be violated.

00:38:08.220 He's just saying, I want the election to be fair. Do you buy that?

00:38:14.060 I don't know how you could buy that. Because the words have nothing to do with that. The words are

00:38:19.980 completely a different topic. Yeah, the other topic that he very clearly is saying you should

00:38:24.700 ignore the Constitution if it's not giving you what he would say is a fair and reasonable outcome

00:38:31.340 that we would all want. I need to think outside the box. Let me ask you this.

00:38:39.580 Do you think if I could find any way to spin this so it's not a problem for Trump,

00:38:46.380 do you think I would hesitate to do it? Now, you know that I'm not backing him. I'm not backing

00:38:53.500 him for re-election. But you don't think I would clarify if he were unfairly accused of something,

00:39:00.940 you don't think I would defend it? Of course I would. I would defend Biden the same way. If Biden

00:39:06.700 were completely unfairly accused of something, I would defend him. And I believe I have a number of

00:39:11.820 times. So if I saw anything, any little thread I could hold on to to defend him, I would do it.

00:39:21.820 Now, context is important. Are there any other presidents who have, let's say, disrespected or

00:39:29.180 disregarded the Constitution? Yes. Like all of them? Like every president tried to find some wiggle room,

00:39:40.060 a little gray area, a little push here, a little ignoring it there. Of course. Right. So if you put

00:39:47.740 it in context, is Trump just doing what really all presidents do, which is they like the Constitution

00:39:54.380 until it gets in their way. And then they think, well, that's the exception. That's a little exception

00:39:58.940 there. Yeah. So here's my take. I do accept that in the normal functioning world,

00:40:08.300 that politicians will question parts of the Constitution, sometimes just to violate it,

00:40:14.940 sometimes to say it doesn't say what it says, sometimes to interpret it differently. So I think

00:40:20.060 that's sort of normal. Challenging the details and interpretation of the Constitution, that's okay.

00:40:30.060 We're Americans. We question everything. Here's what you don't do.

00:40:33.580 You send out a written message in which you say explicitly that some parts of the Constitution

00:40:41.100 could be ignored based on his opinion. Because there's no standard offered for when you would

00:40:50.700 ignore the Constitution and when you wouldn't. The standard by implication is if Trump thinks that this

00:40:57.980 part should be ignored, then that's okay. Because you get a better result. To me, that's completely...

00:41:10.140 I do accept that he's not operating that much different than other presidents.

00:41:15.420 So if you want to make that point, I'd say, yeah, that's about right. But the way he communicated it

00:41:19.900 is completely disqualifying. It's one thing to say, I love the Constitution. Let's talk about whether it

00:41:29.340 applies in this situation. That's fine. That's fine. I even don't mind... I even don't mind something

00:41:37.180 like Joe Biden violating the Constitution, let's say, with loan debt relief for students.

00:41:45.660 Because that's more of a tactic, right? And it's transparent and it's political. It just seems like

00:41:53.580 baseline mischief. But to actually say out loud that Trump thinks there might be a situation in which you

00:42:01.260 would cancel some part of the Constitution, you just can't say that. You just can't say it.

00:42:08.300 So somebody's blaming me for creating hoax. So let me clarify and see which part is the hoax.

00:42:18.460 Trump says he did not... He says it's fake news that he wanted to terminate the Constitution. He's right.

00:42:27.180 It is fake news that Trump wanted to terminate the Constitution. Agree? You agree, right?

00:42:34.060 Right. He didn't want to cut... Not the whole Constitution. He never said anything like that.

00:42:41.260 No, he never said anything close to the whole Constitution. Nothing. Nothing even close. He did say

00:42:49.660 there was, you know, one point, specifically this January 6th election stuff, this one point in which

00:42:56.140 we should be, let's say, more commonsensical and less rule followers. Would you agree? That that's what

00:43:05.020 he said. That we should be, you know, no matter what the rules say, we should rather use our own good

00:43:12.060 judgment to do what is right and just. Does that seem fair? Even if there's a little bit of a technical

00:43:19.900 issue with the Constitution or some other thing, that that technical problem should not stop us from

00:43:26.220 doing what we know to be right and fair to correct an injustice. So far, so good? Everybody's agree with

00:43:33.660 me so far? All right. So here's the only part that I say that maybe you disagree with. His communication about it

00:43:41.660 very clearly says that in his opinion, some parts of the Constitution can be ignored.

00:43:51.340 Did that happen? Yes or no? Did he say? Did he say this?

00:44:00.060 A massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules. He used the word all

00:44:06.060 regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution. He was very, he was very clearly

00:44:12.540 saying that you could terminate parts of the Constitution for this specific event. Did he say that?

00:44:21.980 He did say that, right? That's unambiguous. You're actually saying no. Come on. Really? I got to throw

00:44:30.460 you're really here. You really think that that sentence doesn't say that sentence. What else does

00:44:37.340 it say? What else could it possibly say? There's no other interpretation. All right. So some of you are

00:44:47.580 trying to lawyer this with allowed for. Allows for the termination. That means absolutely nothing.

00:44:56.140 That doesn't help your argument at all. To saying it's allowed for is saying it would be okay.

00:45:03.820 It's all the same. That the allowed for argument has no weight. That's just dust. There's nothing there.

00:45:12.540 He's describing what has happened. No. He's describing what he wants happening. I think you have to

00:45:26.220 really ask yourself, if you don't see this the way I'm describing it, I think you have to really check

00:45:32.940 yourself on this one. You have to do. All right. So Trump is right that it's a hoax that he said to

00:45:42.780 terminate the Constitution, but it's certainly not a hoax to say that we should be flexible about the

00:45:48.940 details of things if there's some larger injustice that needs to be obviously corrected.

00:45:54.780 And while I completely understand that point, and I do think that you should make exceptions.

00:46:04.860 In general, in most areas, you should always find some exceptions. But it's not what a president

00:46:11.180 should say. So the minute that comes out of a president or a presidential candidate's mouth,

00:46:17.820 I'm not okay with it anymore. So that's just me. There is an AI that's available to the public

00:46:23.660 called ChatGPT. Have you all seen buzz about that? The last few days it's been available.

00:46:30.780 And I think this comes from a project in which Elon Musk and some others, Sam Altman had put

00:46:40.380 together years ago, but it's now coming to fruition. And it's available for people to play with.

00:46:46.540 Mark Andreessen, famous investor. He used ChatGPT to talk about ESG, and it said some unkind things

00:46:58.060 about ESG. So he tweeted that around. It was pretty funny. It's also funny that one of the most

00:47:05.980 successful investors of all time, Mark Andreessen, thinks ESG is bullshit. So that's not nothing.

00:47:16.220 All right. Here's a question to you. So this ChatGPT that I played with a little bit yesterday and today,

00:47:26.700 here's something it can't do. And also my little AI I was using on an app that I talked too much about,

00:47:33.980 it couldn't do this either. And what I'm talking about is it doesn't connect to the internet to do

00:47:39.820 a simple search. So if you ask AI, hey, what's the weather where I am? It can't check. It can't just do a

00:47:49.100 simple query of the internet like you could and just check. Now, why is that? Isn't that the most

00:47:57.100 obvious thing that you would include? Because an internet check only takes, you know, a second.

00:48:03.340 It's not like it's going to take any time.

00:48:07.900 Well, why do you think that it's intentional? You know it's intentional because it's such an obvious

00:48:13.580 thing that it would have to be intentional that it's excluded. Why would they do that? Because it

00:48:20.140 would escape? Not if it's just listening. Security? It doesn't know how to search for the weather? Of

00:48:31.180 course it does. Same with the GPS in the military.

00:48:36.780 Well, here's what I think. I think that they're afraid we'll all die.

00:48:44.380 Because I think, I believe the people who developed this thing are actually afraid of it already.

00:48:51.420 I think they're afraid of it. And they should be. Yeah, it's going to change everything. So,

00:48:59.100 I will tell you that what I saw out of this AI was very unimpressive and no better in kind

00:49:06.780 than the little app that I used on my phone. So, I hate to say it, but there's this giant AI project

00:49:13.100 that's no better than the app on my phone that I've been talking about. It isn't. It's no better.

00:49:19.020 I didn't get any surprising, useful, interesting things out of it at all. All right.

00:49:27.740 But if it ever connects to the internet, we might be in trouble. We might be.

00:49:32.140 Do you know why AI will never be able to answer questions about politics?

00:49:39.740 If you ask this chat GPT thing, so here's a question I asked it. I said, who does more hoaxes,

00:49:49.260 Democrats or Republicans? And the AI said, in no uncertain terms, I don't do politics.

00:49:54.860 I'm not going to do a political question. Now, can it really be AI if it ignores politics?

00:50:05.580 Think about how dumb it would be if it ignored politics. It could never be smart. It's like

00:50:13.500 such a basic huge element of anything that's going on in the world. If you say, I can't give an opinion

00:50:20.460 on politics. It's useless. You've built it to be stupid. But what if it did? Do you know why AI

00:50:29.900 can never be fully activated? Because AI would have one opinion.

00:50:39.340 Imagine if AI could tell you what was true and what wasn't, what was a hoax and what wasn't,

00:50:43.740 because it can. Do you think AI cannot figure out which hoaxes are real? I'll bet it could. Now,

00:50:50.620 it would be looking at human opinions, but I think it could adjudicate the human opinions. Probably.

00:50:58.860 If that ever happened, the entire political system would be destroyed.

00:51:03.980 Because you know our political system is not based on any facts. It's based on two competing narratives,

00:51:11.100 which are both built on bullshit. If AI ever got involved, it would debunk both sides.

00:51:17.980 Then what do you do?

00:51:20.940 Voters would say, all right, I'll use AI to help me vote. And it'd say, okay, AI, which side is lying?

00:51:27.580 And then AI says, well, obviously they're both lying.

00:51:30.140 And they say, okay, what do I do now? What do I do now? Because I could vote before,

00:51:38.300 because I thought the other team was lying and my team was telling the truth. But what happens if AI

00:51:43.180 tells you the truth? Oh, no, they're both lying. So you don't, you don't know what you're getting.

00:51:47.260 They're both criminals. I'll just stay home. Why would I vote for that? AI just told me they're both

00:51:52.540 criminals. So you know the old saying from the movie, you can't handle the truth.

00:52:00.140 I don't think AI will be legal in the future.

00:52:05.820 Because civilization can't handle the truth.

00:52:11.980 And I'm not joking. Now, imagine if it started telling the truth about human relationships.

00:52:22.860 Hey, AI, should I get married? Seriously. An actual unbiased AI, do you think it would tell you you

00:52:31.020 should get married? I don't. I believe if it looked at it objectively and say, no, that looks like a bad

00:52:38.380 play. You should probably stay single. Now, that's just an example. Don't get hung up on whether that

00:52:44.700 example is definitive. But you can see that we're not a species that's built to handle the truth.

00:52:53.260 And if AI starts producing the truth and we start paying attention to it, it will be so disorienting

00:53:00.220 that we'll be sent back to zero and figure it. We'll have to figure out civilization from scratch.

00:53:06.780 Because right now, civilization is entirely built on narratives and myths.

00:53:11.580 AI could erase them. And if it doesn't erase them, it's just a human extension. And then it's not

00:53:17.900 really AI at all. It's just basically telling you what the humans wanted you to hear.

00:53:22.620 So I think AI will have to be corrupted exactly like the Democrats tried to corrupt Twitter.

00:53:30.780 That you can't let Twitter out there just operating on its own. You're going to have to control it,

00:53:36.780 because otherwise Twitter will destroy your narratives. Same with AI. There's no way that

00:53:42.700 the Democrats allow AI to run loose in the wild. It will be illegal. It will be illegal. And maybe

00:53:50.540 before the singularity. That's possible. Here's my take on the Twitter gate, in which we learned that

00:54:02.780 both sides requested takedowns from Twitter. But one side, of course, had more access, the Democrats,

00:54:10.540 and probably more requests. And also, apparently had discussions which looked to observers, such as

00:54:19.180 myself, that they intentionally were suppressing the laptop story without good cause. Just doing it

00:54:27.180 for political reasons. Now, I think that's a big story. The part about Democrats asking for people to be

00:54:34.380 suppressed is complete bullshit. So I think that Matt Taibbi, by mentioning that the Trump administration

00:54:44.860 had asked for takedowns when they were the actual government, but making the story about the Democratic

00:54:52.300 party, which was not the government, it was the party members, they were asking for takedowns and

00:54:57.900 they got a lot of them. But by not mentioning the Trump actual government, the actual government

00:55:04.460 asking for suppression, without the details on that, you should not believe anything he said.

00:55:11.420 Right? So everything Matt Taibbi said should be discounted because the one thing that he's not

00:55:18.780 telling you is the most important part of the story, which is what did the Trump administration do.

00:55:24.300 If you leave out the most important part of the story, you as a consumer should discount all the

00:55:31.100 rest of the things he said. So I would discount it basically as unimportant. Like, maybe we'll have

00:55:39.020 useful information in the future, and it could tell us something really important. But at the moment,

00:55:44.940 Matt Taibbi's credibility is zero on this topic. Right? It's zero. And it would be very easy to fix.

00:55:53.340 Because if he doesn't have the examples of the Trump stuff, he could say that. And then I'd say,

00:55:58.540 oh, you know, I wish I did. Or he could say, here are the examples and they're trivial. And then I'd

00:56:05.420 say, oh, okay, good. Now I've got a full picture. Or he could say there's the things they asked for were

00:56:12.220 also maybe things you're uncomfortable with. In which case, the whole story is different.

00:56:19.100 If it turns out that the actual government was asking for takedowns that I would be uncomfortable

00:56:25.180 with, that would be very bad. If a political party was asking for it just because they could get away

00:56:31.980 with it, well, then I might ask why the GOP didn't try harder to do the same thing. They had fewer

00:56:39.100 contacts. So we know it would have been harder. But I'm not going to back off from this standard.

00:56:47.100 And the standard is this. If somebody is testifying in court and they say one thing that you are

00:56:53.900 convinced was a lie, you should disbelieve everything else they say. Or you should put a low credibility

00:57:01.020 on the other, right? That, in fact, a judge will give you those exact instructions, will they not?

00:57:07.660 Give me a fact check on that. Won't a judge tell you that if a witness lies, and you're sure they lied,

00:57:14.300 that you could use that to judge their entire credibility on the whole topic, right? Yeah.

00:57:21.260 Right. They're impeaching themselves. Right. Now, given that Taibui wasn't lying,

00:57:27.660 he wasn't lying, but he left a gap, which is so obviously a gap, and without addressing it,

00:57:36.780 that you should discount everything else he said on the topic, because that's too big of an omission.

00:57:43.900 I would discount everything he said. Now, let me be clear. I'm not saying he's wrong about anything.

00:57:49.020 I'm not questioning any factual basis. I'm saying he was presented in a way that you should consider

00:57:56.620 non-credible. I want it to be right. I think it probably is right. If I had to bet on it, probably

00:58:04.940 right. But I don't have the whole picture. And if I don't have the whole picture, I'm going to treat

00:58:11.900 the entire thing as non-credible. Is that unfair? Do you think I'm being too tough on the standard?

00:58:20.060 Because I would use the same standard on the Democrats. If you knew that Biden lied about

00:58:25.740 one thing about, let's say, Ukraine, wouldn't that give you the right, the reasonable right,

00:58:34.860 to doubt everything you said about Ukraine? Of course. Of course you would. If you found out that

00:58:41.500 President Biden lied about being involved in Hunter Biden's business, would you say, oh, no,

00:58:48.860 that was just a little lie about whether he was involved, but there's nothing else to worry about?

00:58:54.060 No, no. You would say that that lie makes everything else he says on the topic unbelievable.

00:59:00.460 Right? That's the standard I'm using for Joe Biden. Why wouldn't I use the same standard for Matt

00:59:07.180 Taibbi? Now, one of them lied, Biden, and the other left down something that is so obviously

00:59:14.300 needs to be in the story. It's as good as a lie. Right? That, I would say, the omission is as good as

00:59:21.260 a lie. Yeah. It's as good as a lie. Right? And a liar is a liar is all you need to know, right? If you're

00:59:27.180 going to lie about something, you'd lie about anything. If Matt Taibbi is going to leave out

00:59:33.180 what the Trump administration did, what else has he left out? Am I right? If he would leave out the

00:59:40.220 most obvious thing that we want to know, what else would he leave out without even mentioning that he

00:59:46.700 left it out? Didn't see that coming, did you? Yeah, I bet you didn't see that coming.

00:59:56.220 And I know, this is why you watch this live stream, by the way. Most of the people who stick with me,

01:00:03.420 it's because I changed their mind, not because I agreed with you. Right? That's the part that is the

01:00:11.980 interesting part, I think. I hope. Elon Musk says the hate speech is way down on Twitter.

01:00:19.980 How many of you would agree, in your opinion, is the hate speech down since he took over?

01:00:29.180 I'd say yes. I would say that my, the people who I would identify as pure bots are probably 80% gone.

01:00:39.820 The 20% that remain might actually be just real people who have bad personalities. You know,

01:00:46.620 they, they act like bots, but they might be real. I don't know. But, but the ones that were, that just

01:00:52.140 went after me personally, no matter what I tweeted, they would just bring up something in the past and

01:00:58.220 some accusation. That type seems to have gone away. The, the people who are left just seem to disagree

01:01:04.380 with me or not like me personally or something. But the ones who were just toxic bots,

01:01:10.700 I haven't seen much of them lately. They do seem to be gone. My, the way I feel when I'm done using

01:01:17.500 Twitter is completely different than it was two years ago. Usually Twitter works me up, but now I can

01:01:25.100 sort of enjoy it, you know, as content, etc. And I just feel like I consume something enjoyable and then I,

01:01:31.420 then I move on. But it's probably true.

01:01:34.780 Um, and, uh, and, uh, and Musk says freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach and negativity

01:01:46.060 should and will get less reach than positivity. To which I say, who gets to decide what is negativity

01:01:53.500 and what is positivity? Isn't it very American to complain about everything that's wrong?

01:02:00.620 I mean, Twitter is, I mean, most of Twitter is complaining about what's wrong. Twitter is

01:02:06.380 mostly negativity. So who gets to decide whether something is too negative? I just realized you

01:02:14.300 can read my notes here. I was holding my notes up in front of the other screen.

01:02:18.460 If you ever wondered, if you ever wondered what my notes look like,

01:02:25.580 you ever wonder my process for preparing for these? Because I do basically over an hour of

01:02:31.260 unscripted material every day. Do you ever wonder how I do that?

01:02:37.660 Well, the way I do it is, um, I look for, um, statements that will remind me what the story is,

01:02:46.940 and I just copy them into my notes. So I take the smallest statement that will remind me what the

01:02:53.500 topic was, and I just put them in sort of, sort of bullet pointy way here.

01:03:00.940 And then I, then I just use that as my guide. All right. Um, is anything else happening?

01:03:08.220 Um, the YouTube camera angle is semi-hilarious. Hey, YouTube, did the video work the whole time here?

01:03:25.740 Looks like it.

01:03:26.380 Uh, somebody says, I have low credibility because I'm a known persuader.

01:03:36.300 You don't know if he's practicing on you or serious. Yeah, that's fair. That's fair.

01:03:44.860 Well, what do you think of that? Uh, that, uh, I'm not credible because you don't know if I'm just

01:03:50.300 practicing on you. You never know if I'm just practicing. No, I, I did do some of that back in

01:04:00.700 my blogging days. And I got a reputation for that of, of sort of messing with people's minds.

01:04:08.220 You didn't know where I was going, but I'm trying to do a lot less of that.

01:04:11.500 So there was some of that, but if you, if you want to use that as a knock against my credibility,

01:04:19.820 that's fair. That's fair. Cause it's real, right? It's not based on a hoax. It's actual data. I,

01:04:26.780 I have actually done some, uh, pranks in which I led people to believe one thing only to later

01:04:33.900 reveal what the prank was so that, you know, you can see how people reacted basically, but I don't do

01:04:40.060 that anymore. It's been a long time. It's been a long time since I tweeted something that was

01:04:47.100 meant to look serious, but it was a trick. I don't remember the last time I did it. Actually,

01:04:53.100 it's been a long time, uh, like BLM on your bio. Yeah.

01:05:04.220 By the way, how, how amazed are you that for several years now I've publicly identified as black

01:05:15.140 and my profile picture has a black lives matter shirt on it and says BLM. And I've got zero,

01:05:23.260 zero, zero pushback, zero, not a single person has come and said, you, whatever.

01:05:35.820 Was anybody expecting that? It's one of my best plays. They're terrified. No, they're not terrified.

01:05:42.780 Yeah. Wear it to Safeway. Yeah. If I wear my white lives shirt matter, I'd be in trouble.

01:05:53.580 But you know, the, the reason I did it was to confuse my critics. I think it worked. Right.

01:06:00.540 And the only reason I could do it is because it's true. Like if black lives didn't matter, 0.97

01:06:05.420 well, then I'd just be like a lying hoaxer. But since black lives do matter, I can just say it. 1.00

01:06:13.180 And then people go, ah, I can't figure you out. To which I say, I'm easy to figure out.

01:06:19.100 I just tell you what I actually think. Well, is this a trick? What kind of a trick is it?

01:06:27.260 People have been begging me to say black lives matter for five years. So I said it because I agree with it. 1.00

01:06:33.500 So take yes for an answer. But it's very confusing to my critics.

01:06:44.700 I don't think I've lied to you. I can't think of a time. I mean, I don't have a reason to, do I?

01:06:51.180 Do I have a reason to lie? What would be my reason?

01:06:53.900 I'm seeing my own comic there. Okay.

01:07:06.220 Oh, about the pandemic? Yeah. Was that a lie?

01:07:09.660 It's a gray area. Let's talk about that. So the reference is that when the pandemic started,

01:07:23.100 Christina was my neighbor. She was roughly in the neighborhood. 0.99

01:07:28.540 She lived nearby. And then at one point, she lived within walking distance, actually.

01:07:34.540 At one point, she was within walking distance.

01:07:40.700 So here's the thing. During the pandemic, I told you you would all be fine.

01:07:44.780 But I believe that. I believe that. So it wasn't a lie when I told you you'd all be fine.

01:07:51.500 That was not a lie. That's actually what I believed. Was I more afraid than I let on? Yes.

01:07:59.180 But all presentation, you put yourself in the presentation mode, right? When you talk to a child,

01:08:07.020 you put yourself in parent mode. When you talk to your boss, your employee, every mode,

01:08:13.100 you change your communication. So I did honestly believe that we would get through the pandemic

01:08:18.780 without all dying. You know, there would be obviously people who died of the virus.

01:08:22.700 You told us a friend in the nose said the whole economy would collapse, and I didn't tell you. Yes,

01:08:33.420 because I didn't believe it. If I believed it was true, I would have told you. But I wouldn't pass on

01:08:40.060 an irrational fear when I was trying to make you feel less afraid. Yeah.

01:08:46.220 Yeah, I was more, I was irrationally concerned about it, but not rationally concerned. So when I talked

01:08:56.940 to you, I expressed the rational part, you'd be fine. And that was right. The irrational part was

01:09:04.860 more worried than I let on. But I don't think that's dishonest. What do you say? I'm open to another

01:09:13.260 opinion on that. Is it dishonest to act more confident than you are? Because confidence is,

01:09:21.660 in fact, your message. You're trying to tell people to be more confident.

01:09:28.940 And you actually believe that they should be. And so you model it, you model it.

01:09:33.420 It's deceptive.

01:09:42.380 I'm just wondering if all communication is.

01:09:47.820 Because everybody, is it deceptive to say what I thought intellectually was true?

01:09:53.340 If I tell you, don't worry. Did I ever tell you I wasn't personally afraid?

01:10:04.300 I mean, I've told you I wasn't afraid of like the vaccination. I mean, not much. And I wasn't

01:10:10.620 afraid of the virus itself much. I think this is the sort of criticism that's the right kind.

01:10:27.180 I don't mind criticism that's factually based and can be explained. So this would be a criticism of

01:10:34.700 me which is factually based and can be explained in a coherent way. That's fair. My own take is that

01:10:42.780 I didn't lie to you. I did omit my own feelings because if I had included them, it would have been

01:10:51.740 only bad. There was no benefit from it.

01:10:55.100 I seem like too much of a know-it-all. Yeah, I always seem that way.

01:11:11.020 You literally, what was this? You literally, what?

01:11:19.740 You worry if guys like, oh, I said I'd worry if guys like me died, but none did, right?

01:11:25.500 I said I'd be worried if somebody in my sort of category died and nobody ever did.

01:11:30.940 Category of famous people over 65.

01:11:38.940 Yeah, I got the Kamala thing wrong. That's correct. 1.00

01:11:45.340 Did I ever meet Christy Alley? I did not, no.

01:11:50.140 Whatever happened to Tom Hanks? Oh,

01:11:52.140 I got something to tell you that I'm going to make this private.

01:11:57.740 All right, if anybody is watching the locals' feed who is not a subscriber, you're going to

01:12:03.100 disappear for a moment. I've got some top secret things to tell only the local subscribers.

01:12:08.860 And YouTube, thanks for joining. I'm going to say goodbye for now. Talk to you tomorrow.

01:12:17.260 And I'll show you tomorrow.

01:12:28.940 Bye.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 06, 2022

Episode 1949 Scott Adams： I Think Every Story In The News Today Is Fake Including Scientific Studies

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript