Real Coffee with Scott Adams - January 30, 2023


Episode 2004 Scott Adams: Alternative WEF, Dogbert Takes On Canada, Biden Documents Scandal & More


Episode Stats


Length

1 hour and 12 minutes

Words per minute

145.14474

Word count

10,475

Sentence count

766

Harmful content

Misogyny

20

sentences flagged

Hate speech

13

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

The good news is that the drought is over in California. The bad news is, it means you won t be able to go out in the sun in the summer. Also, CNN's ratings have reached a new 9-year low.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
00:00:00.320 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization, the best thing
00:00:05.380 that'll ever happen to you in your whole damn life. 0.69
00:00:07.560 And if you'd like to increase your enjoyment level, and now it's hard to imagine you could
00:00:13.680 even do it at this point, we're reaching such lofty levels.
00:00:17.720 Well, there's one thing you can try, one last thing you can try to increase your enjoyment,
00:00:23.600 and all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug
00:00:28.100 or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
00:00:32.460 I like coffee.
00:00:34.340 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that
00:00:38.080 makes everything better.
00:00:39.300 It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
00:00:43.400 Go.
00:00:48.100 Ah.
00:00:50.200 Let me ask you a question, fine people.
00:00:52.840 Do you believe you can tell the difference between good news and bad news with your common
00:01:02.620 sense and your judgment and your instincts and your heuristics?
00:01:10.000 Well, sometimes it's not so clear.
00:01:13.240 Sometimes we can't tell the difference between good news and bad news.
00:01:17.020 For example, California is suffering a drought for a number of years.
00:01:23.860 What would be good news if you were suffering a drought?
00:01:29.420 Rain.
00:01:31.140 Not just rain, but a lot of rain.
00:01:34.700 A lot of rain.
00:01:36.000 In fact, California got so much rain that it made a dent in the drought.
00:01:43.180 So the news today is the dangerous side to this.
00:01:51.080 Oh yeah, there's a dangerous side to not having a drought.
00:01:55.040 It's that the plants and trees will grow so quickly with all that water that when they
00:02:00.220 inevitably dry out in the summer, it's going to be a forest fire catastrophe.
00:02:08.020 Right.
00:02:09.260 So the good news is the drought's over.
00:02:11.640 The bad news is we'll go up in flames and you won't be able to go outdoors in the summer.
00:02:18.260 So is there anything that Tinder can't ruin?
00:02:22.900 I'll just let that one sit there for a while.
00:02:25.420 Is there anything that Tinder can't ruin?
00:02:29.500 You could just fill in the rest yourself at home.
00:02:31.580 Well, I saw a review, I think it was on CNN, that said there's a new show on that's apparently
00:02:40.960 a banger.
00:02:41.840 It's a banger.
00:02:43.080 I think that's like a British word for good.
00:02:46.160 And I said to myself, wow, are you kidding me?
00:02:49.400 There's something worth watching on television?
00:02:51.320 But before I read the review, before I read the review, I realized what was going on.
00:03:00.120 What does it mean in 2023 when there's a movie or a TV series that's excellent?
00:03:08.520 What's that mean?
00:03:09.840 It's really, really good.
00:03:11.220 Yeah, it was basically Brokeback Mountain.
00:03:16.460 Yeah.
00:03:16.960 So it had to be either Holocaust or Brokeback Mountain, had to be LGBTQ, had to be a trans 0.95
00:03:23.560 in there somewhere.
00:03:25.720 Right?
00:03:26.560 So I'm reading the review.
00:03:27.720 It's like, and the love story between these two men.
00:03:30.800 Oh, okay, I get it.
00:03:32.020 Best thing that's ever been on television.
00:03:33.700 Because it's a love story between two men.
00:03:36.780 And that's all you need to know.
00:03:38.140 Best thing on television ever since the beginning of time.
00:03:40.680 Probably win a lot of awards.
00:03:46.000 CNN's ratings have reached a new nine-year low.
00:03:51.880 And this is why we call Greg Goffheld the Thanos of news.
00:03:57.920 He's destroyed half of his competition already.
00:04:00.820 But that's only part of the story.
00:04:03.700 Apparently, CNN notched its, I'm sorry, a Megyn Kelly tweet.
00:04:13.600 I saw her talking about it.
00:04:14.720 She said it got its lowest ratings in nine years, but it's also the lowest rating across
00:04:19.700 every category of the day.
00:04:22.040 So every hour of the day, a new low.
00:04:25.880 Now, here's the funny thing.
00:04:27.000 On Twitter, you can read the comments of the ex-CNN viewers and how unhappy they are.
00:04:33.700 Do you know why they're so unhappy?
00:04:36.260 Why are the CNN viewers so unhappy with CNN?
00:04:41.620 It started telling real news.
00:04:43.840 Not completely.
00:04:45.940 They still have a good pocket of bias over there that comes out pretty obviously.
00:04:51.840 But they made a concerted, and I think legitimate, move toward actual news, where they didn't just
00:05:00.400 lie about conservatives.
00:05:01.360 And then the people are like, what?
00:05:06.820 What?
00:05:07.860 Yeah.
00:05:08.540 So it turns out you can't make money telling people the truth or attempting to tell them the truth.
00:05:15.260 You could argue whether they get it right.
00:05:16.740 But attempting to tell people a calm, objective truth is terrible for your ratings.
00:05:25.780 Do you know how I know that?
00:05:27.960 Does anybody know how I know that attempting to tell the truth, even if you don't do it right,
00:05:34.440 but attempting to tell the truth, you know that's terrible for ratings, right?
00:05:38.460 It's certainly bad for mine.
00:05:42.580 Now, luckily, I have, you know, a death wish.
00:05:46.660 You know, that's not literal.
00:05:48.840 I don't have a literal death wish.
00:05:51.220 And by the way, I'm not planning to commit suicide.
00:05:53.940 So let me put that out there.
00:05:57.040 I am not planning to commit suicide.
00:05:59.580 Feeling good.
00:06:00.740 Feeling great, actually.
00:06:02.440 Now that I'm off my blood pressure meds, they were definitely screwing with my mind.
00:06:06.320 But I want you to know, I'm not planning to kill myself.
00:06:09.820 Because I do think there's a reasonably good chance I'll get murdered in the next two years.
00:06:14.720 I mean, reasonable chance meaning 5%.
00:06:17.820 Maybe 5%.
00:06:19.500 But that's, you know, more than you want to worry about.
00:06:21.740 Well, you probably don't have a 5% chance of getting murdered.
00:06:25.940 But I have a 5% chance of getting murdered for political reasons.
00:06:29.840 Because I moved the deal.
00:06:33.100 So, anyway.
00:06:37.200 What was I talking about?
00:06:40.240 I completely lost the thread.
00:06:43.500 I don't know.
00:06:43.840 Was it interesting?
00:06:45.200 Was it anything good?
00:06:47.420 Oh, about the news, yeah.
00:06:48.700 So, CNN is losing viewers because they're attempting to tell them the truth.
00:06:55.360 I attempt to tell the truth on my live streams and tweeting.
00:06:59.640 But, of course, everybody just says, well, that's your truth, you big old stupid liar.
00:07:03.900 You gullible idiot.
00:07:05.420 We'll talk more about how dumb I am later.
00:07:09.000 All right.
00:07:09.440 Here's a story that, I swear to God, you really can't tell the difference between parody and reality.
00:07:16.860 If I didn't tell you, if I had not told you in advance that this is real, the following story, would you have believed it?
00:07:25.380 All right.
00:07:25.820 If you didn't know it was real, would you have believed this if you just heard it in the wild?
00:07:29.940 I'm not even sure I believe it, but I saw it today.
00:07:32.160 That the book, 1984, George Orwell's book, famous classic, the estate has approved a request to have it rewritten from a woman's point of view.
00:07:54.720 Finally.
00:07:55.320 Finally.
00:07:55.440 Finally.
00:07:59.520 Yeah.
00:08:00.240 Finally.
00:08:02.460 Finally.
00:08:03.520 I'll tell you, I tried to read that thing.
00:08:06.440 You know I tried to read 1984.
00:08:08.980 I was familiar with it, of course.
00:08:10.820 But I wanted to see if it held up.
00:08:12.840 And I tried to read that thing, and I was like, oh, my God.
00:08:15.780 This book is entirely from a man's point of view.
00:08:19.500 I couldn't even finish it.
00:08:21.460 There were no LGBTQ themes.
00:08:23.920 The Holocaust wasn't even mentioned.
00:08:26.700 Not once.
00:08:30.180 Maybe it was.
00:08:31.460 Maybe it was.
00:08:32.280 Actually, I don't remember.
00:08:35.780 But, you know, the biggest problem was it wasn't from a woman's point of view. 0.84
00:08:41.360 And if you could get that fixed, then that book might have some legs.
00:08:45.560 People might want to start talking about that.
00:08:47.860 Well, well, I swear to God, I had something on my, you know, why is it that, have you ever
00:08:59.560 just tried to open an iPad and just leave it there so you could go back to it?
00:09:04.820 And it'll, like, just, like, change its page, and it'll turn off, and it'll come up, and it'll
00:09:10.780 ask for software updates, and, like, why can't it just sit there?
00:09:15.300 Just sit there and do what the fuck?
00:09:17.600 Sorry.
00:09:18.800 There will be no cursing.
00:09:20.940 There will be no cursing.
00:09:22.140 But I'd like to call your attention to today's Dilbert comic, which I just tweeted, and you
00:09:29.880 may recognize this story.
00:09:31.640 It's Dogbert talking to Dilbert.
00:09:34.420 See if you recognize this story from the news.
00:09:37.500 Dogbert's reading his phone, and Dogbert says, the College of Psychologists of Ontario
00:09:42.600 says they will pull my license unless I surrender to a re-education camp.
00:09:47.160 Dilbert says, you don't live in Canada, and you don't have a license to practice.
00:09:53.800 And then Dilbert says, they are oddly aggressive for Canadians.
00:09:57.400 And Dogbert takes a sip of his coffee and says, sounds like a mental disorder.
00:10:03.640 Do you recognize that story?
00:10:06.220 Yeah, the College of Psychologists of Ontario has asked Dr. Jordan Peterson to come in to
00:10:13.940 be re-educated.
00:10:17.160 The best thing that ever happened to Canadian psychologist industry is Jordan Peterson.
00:10:29.080 He actually made their entire profession look worthwhile for a change.
00:10:35.160 He took this thing that didn't have the greatest reputation in the world, you know, the practice
00:10:39.920 of psychology, and turned it into something useful for millions of people around the world.
00:10:45.320 So what do they got to do?
00:10:47.980 Well, you better re-educate that motherfucker, because, sorry, I just couldn't do it.
00:10:53.360 I just couldn't get through it without swearing.
00:10:57.000 But I think you agree that one belonged.
00:10:59.880 That one belonged there.
00:11:02.200 So I had already previewed to Dr. Peterson that I was going to run this comic.
00:11:09.240 He asked for the original.
00:11:12.300 Do you think I said yes?
00:11:15.540 It's a trick question.
00:11:17.700 It's a trick question.
00:11:19.420 No, it's a trick question.
00:11:20.660 Come on.
00:11:21.200 Come on, it's me.
00:11:22.320 You know it's always a trick question.
00:11:24.780 There's no original.
00:11:26.640 There's no such thing as originals.
00:11:28.760 They're all created digitally.
00:11:29.980 But I will send up a nice copy, because I just wanted him to know, I'm in his corner
00:11:38.380 solidly in his fight against the Ontario, or the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
00:11:45.140 And if you are not aware of this, I'm just guessing.
00:11:52.520 I'm just going to take a guess.
00:11:53.700 There's probably a better than 50% chance that the members of the College of Psychologists
00:12:00.040 of Ontario have been sent a few copies of this comic this morning.
00:12:05.180 Probably.
00:12:06.440 I'll bet they got a few copies sent to them.
00:12:08.960 I'll bet when they opened their email, they were, oh, not 400 copies of this damn thing
00:12:13.700 being sent to me.
00:12:14.860 Why do people keep sending me this comic?
00:12:16.640 Why are they mocking us for this totally reasonable effort of ours to re-educate the only person
00:12:25.200 who has made them look good in their entire history?
00:12:31.320 So, anyway.
00:12:33.000 We'll see if the power of Dilbert has any hold.
00:12:36.200 By the way, this will become the subject of a lawsuit.
00:12:39.940 I think, isn't Dr. Peterson taking him to court?
00:12:44.720 Some kind of lawsuit about this?
00:12:46.640 I don't know the details.
00:12:48.640 But I will tell you that the Dilbert comic has been used in lawsuits before, in legal cases.
00:12:55.480 And it's used in the sense of what should be common knowledge.
00:13:00.160 If it appears in a Dilbert comic, that's evidence that the public should know about this.
00:13:07.300 That it's a commonly understood thing.
00:13:09.440 Otherwise, it doesn't become a comic.
00:13:11.340 You know, I wouldn't do a comic about something that, you know, isn't real.
00:13:14.760 Well, I guess I would, but you know the difference.
00:13:18.900 So, it could make a difference.
00:13:22.700 It could make the difference.
00:13:23.820 Because being in a Dilbert comic establishes that it's ridiculous.
00:13:28.520 You get that, right?
00:13:30.220 Like, it wouldn't work as a joke.
00:13:32.840 It wouldn't work unless it was ridiculous on its own.
00:13:35.560 You can't take something that makes sense and make a joke about it.
00:13:38.900 By the way, did you know that?
00:13:40.700 Did you know you can't make a joke about something that's just perfectly reasonable?
00:13:44.300 For example, my company decided to cut expenses because we were losing money.
00:13:55.480 What can I do with that?
00:13:57.720 Nothing.
00:13:59.140 There's no joke you can make about somebody who does the thing you're supposed to do.
00:14:02.980 So, the fact that it's in a Dilbert comic and we can all laugh at it and recognize it as funny.
00:14:08.900 And I didn't change it much.
00:14:10.640 Just that Dogenbert had to be re-educated.
00:14:13.340 The fact that they would re-educate anybody is so ridiculous
00:14:16.700 that it just stands on its own as, okay, that's just stupid.
00:14:23.820 All right, enough about that.
00:14:24.980 Do you think that there's a phone addiction that we have
00:14:31.620 and that the reason we check our phones so much is that the phones are really, really good?
00:14:37.480 Is that why we check them?
00:14:38.940 Because they're so addictive and they're good?
00:14:41.800 That's what we all think, right?
00:14:43.280 And it feels that way.
00:14:44.620 When I use my phone, it feels addictive.
00:14:47.260 So, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that's what's going on.
00:14:50.260 Let me throw out another possibility.
00:14:52.100 Have you ever been with somebody you really enjoyed being with
00:14:56.560 and then you noticed you hadn't looked at your phone in hours?
00:15:01.720 Has that ever happened to you?
00:15:03.880 If you're with people or even just one person
00:15:06.540 and you're really happy with what you're doing,
00:15:09.460 you don't even think about using your phone.
00:15:12.660 So, here's the provocative new theory.
00:15:16.600 Phones are not awesome.
00:15:18.500 They're not addictive.
00:15:20.540 People got worse.
00:15:22.100 People started sucking so badly
00:15:26.280 that spending time with them is just painful.
00:15:29.640 But my phone never disappoints me.
00:15:32.580 When was the last time you looked at your phone
00:15:34.100 and it did not give you a hit?
00:15:37.200 It's like my best dealer ever.
00:15:39.780 I'm like, I need a hit of some chemicals here.
00:15:43.720 Scroll, scroll, scroll.
00:15:44.900 Ah, ha, ha, ha.
00:15:45.620 Good.
00:15:46.060 Okay.
00:15:46.980 Scroll, scroll, scroll.
00:15:48.020 Ah, ha, ha, ha.
00:15:49.280 All right.
00:15:49.860 I'm happy now.
00:15:50.560 I've said this a lot,
00:15:54.640 but I think that our changing preferences
00:15:57.020 have made us all terrible to each other.
00:15:59.980 In the early days, nobody had much of an interest
00:16:04.380 outside of what they were doing, you know, locally.
00:16:07.900 So, you know, at the end of the day,
00:16:09.620 how are your crops?
00:16:11.640 Oh, my crops are good.
00:16:12.740 How are your crops?
00:16:13.680 I mean, we basically had common references
00:16:15.420 and, you know, people enjoyed each other
00:16:18.580 because that's what they had.
00:16:20.160 And now I think people are so picky about what they like
00:16:26.260 and don't like, you put any two together
00:16:28.760 and there's so much they disagree on
00:16:31.040 because there's so much they think about
00:16:33.400 and there's so many different ways to look at everything
00:16:36.120 that we end up being like two porcupines who can't hug.
00:16:40.540 You know, it's like, although I guess porcupines do reproduce.
00:16:44.540 You ever wonder how porcupines reproduce?
00:16:49.680 Let me turn it into a joke.
00:16:51.560 It's already a joke.
00:16:52.480 I'm stealing this joke.
00:16:54.280 How do...
00:16:54.760 Yeah, all right, you've already heard the joke.
00:16:57.000 How do porcupines reproduce? 0.94
00:16:59.200 Very carefully.
00:17:00.460 Very carefully.
00:17:02.260 All right.
00:17:04.440 Just putting that out there.
00:17:06.000 Were you aware that the biggest cause of depression
00:17:08.920 and suicide among the youth is lack of sleep?
00:17:14.540 Did you know that?
00:17:16.360 I heard this as a data,
00:17:18.640 that if you look at lack of sleep,
00:17:21.320 it tracks directly to depression and suicide.
00:17:24.720 Not too surprising, right?
00:17:27.680 So lack of sleep is the number one cause
00:17:30.760 of suicide and depression.
00:17:34.160 What causes lack of sleep in 2023?
00:17:37.280 Only the phone and, you know, screens.
00:17:40.440 Just screens.
00:17:41.080 So, I'm going to go all the way here.
00:17:47.240 I think social media should be illegal for minors.
00:17:51.600 American social media and TikTok and everything else.
00:17:56.200 Now, TikTok should be banned in America.
00:17:58.600 But the other ones, you know, they're American companies
00:18:00.740 and I think they should stay for adults.
00:18:03.120 But I think that minors should not have access
00:18:04.980 to social media after 9 p.m.
00:18:08.840 What do you say?
00:18:10.020 After 9 p.m., no access to social media.
00:18:13.660 But my first choice is to ban it completely for young people.
00:18:17.240 I don't think young people should have access 1.00
00:18:18.720 to any social media.
00:18:21.200 It's not like we don't know that it's dangerous.
00:18:25.060 Let me ask you this.
00:18:26.140 Let's say Big Pharma came up with an idea.
00:18:31.860 And the idea was they were going to have you look at screens every night
00:18:36.420 and you could do it as long as you want.
00:18:38.400 You could stay up all night if you want.
00:18:40.360 And then they do a study.
00:18:41.440 This is Big Pharma, right?
00:18:42.580 Just a hypothetical.
00:18:43.920 And they do the randomized control trial.
00:18:46.280 And they find out that the people who use their screens at night
00:18:48.980 lose sleep and end up being depressed and suicidal.
00:18:52.300 The people who do not use the screens have just normal lives
00:18:57.160 and they're better.
00:18:59.140 So would the government approve that product from Big Pharma?
00:19:04.900 If social media had been tested in a randomized control trial
00:19:08.760 before anybody had access to it,
00:19:11.220 and of course you can't do it,
00:19:13.080 would it be illegal?
00:19:15.000 I don't think so.
00:19:17.080 No.
00:19:17.540 I think the health impact, especially on children,
00:19:20.720 I think the health impact of social media
00:19:23.180 would have made it banned if it had been a drug. 0.69
00:19:27.360 And the reason that we don't call social media a drug
00:19:30.080 is because we're stupid bucket people. 0.79
00:19:34.940 Humans are stupid bucket people.
00:19:37.280 Everything has to be in a bucket.
00:19:39.120 What are you, conservative?
00:19:40.520 Are you conservative or a liberal?
00:19:42.820 Let me get my bucket.
00:19:44.480 Oh, you're in between?
00:19:45.700 No, you can't be in between.
00:19:47.720 Nobody's in between.
00:19:49.560 Get in your bucket.
00:19:51.520 Right?
00:19:51.960 So as soon as you say that drugs are a pill or an injection,
00:19:58.400 then you say, okay, that's drugs.
00:20:01.180 We'll treat drugs this way.
00:20:02.980 We've got all these rules for what a drug is.
00:20:05.580 And then somebody invents social media,
00:20:07.460 which is clearly a drug.
00:20:10.400 Right?
00:20:10.820 I won't even listen to an argument on this point.
00:20:13.960 Social media is a drug
00:20:15.280 that's just administered in a different way.
00:20:18.020 Instead of a needle or a pill that just goes in through your eyes as images.
00:20:24.280 But it's absolutely a drug.
00:20:26.360 And the fact that we don't treat it the way we treat the things that we test and do randomized control trials
00:20:33.480 has nothing to do with whether we should or whether it makes sense.
00:20:38.320 It has nothing to do with the logic, the reasoning, the priorities.
00:20:42.160 Nothing to do with that.
00:20:43.360 It has only to do with the fact that we reflexively put things in buckets
00:20:47.680 and our medical bucket just doesn't have screens in it.
00:20:52.740 And that's it.
00:20:53.900 We put screens in the entertainment bucket
00:20:55.840 when it should have been in the medical bucket.
00:21:00.800 There's not one person arguing the point.
00:21:03.480 There's not a single person here who will argue that point.
00:21:06.460 It's a digital narcotic.
00:21:09.180 Right?
00:21:09.420 You tell me.
00:21:12.180 If we had considered social media a drug,
00:21:15.780 it would not pass government approval.
00:21:19.480 It wouldn't even come close.
00:21:21.440 Not even close.
00:21:26.060 I've heard more people...
00:21:27.420 I heard Bill Maher say the other day
00:21:29.660 that he can't watch a movie anymore
00:21:31.860 because they're too long and boring
00:21:33.940 compared to the quick hit of social media.
00:21:35.800 I don't know if he was talking about other people
00:21:38.500 or about himself, but he made the point.
00:21:41.040 Now, who was the first person you heard say that?
00:21:44.560 I think I'm the first person you've ever heard say that,
00:21:47.600 that movies are dead.
00:21:50.060 You'll never be able to watch a movie again
00:21:51.880 unless you're with somebody
00:21:53.520 and it's more about being with the person.
00:21:56.180 Yeah.
00:21:57.360 Yeah.
00:21:58.280 Yeah.
00:21:59.960 So I was ahead of the curve on that, I guess.
00:22:02.360 So U.S. News,
00:22:07.620 the periodical, the publication, U.S. News,
00:22:11.440 every year they do a ranking of colleges and schools.
00:22:15.360 I guess they do graduate schools
00:22:16.860 and medical schools and stuff like that.
00:22:19.560 And they're having trouble ranking medical schools
00:22:22.600 because some of the medical schools
00:22:25.400 are resisting being ranked on their usual standards.
00:22:30.740 And they say that they won't even contribute information
00:22:34.780 to the rankings
00:22:35.580 unless their diversity and equity successes
00:22:40.000 are included in their ranking.
00:22:43.160 What do you think of that?
00:22:45.500 Would you like colleges to be ranked in part
00:22:49.660 the quality of the school,
00:22:52.080 the quality of the school,
00:22:53.220 not just the fairness,
00:22:54.760 but the quality of the education?
00:22:56.860 That's what's being ranked.
00:22:57.700 Not fairness,
00:22:59.620 but the quality of the education.
00:23:01.660 And they're saying that the quality of the education
00:23:03.780 is better
00:23:04.580 when you've got more diversity
00:23:06.660 and equity and inclusion.
00:23:09.680 What do you think of that?
00:23:11.640 Do you think you can get a better education
00:23:13.180 if there's more diversity?
00:23:20.620 You're all racist.
00:23:22.560 You totally get a better education
00:23:24.360 if there's more diversity.
00:23:25.400 You're all frickin' racists.
00:23:28.320 And I mean that literally.
00:23:31.020 I'm sorry.
00:23:32.020 I just have to say that to your screened faces.
00:23:35.340 No.
00:23:36.160 If the only variable that's different,
00:23:38.440 if the only variable that's different is diversity,
00:23:41.760 it's all positive.
00:23:46.320 Do you disagree?
00:23:47.440 Because the diversity does give you more access
00:23:51.800 to more points of view.
00:23:54.140 So if everybody's equally qualified,
00:23:56.820 that's a benefit.
00:23:59.900 Really, you don't think that's a benefit?
00:24:02.480 If everybody's the same qualifications, 0.93
00:24:04.500 you don't think diversity gives you more points of view,
00:24:07.120 more access,
00:24:08.100 more windows to look through,
00:24:10.100 you know,
00:24:10.320 more understanding,
00:24:12.820 better bedside manner, perhaps,
00:24:15.240 because you understand people better.
00:24:17.860 No, it's unambiguously good.
00:24:20.940 All right.
00:24:21.480 Well, you could argue that point.
00:24:23.120 But here's my point.
00:24:24.940 If the way they get there
00:24:26.340 is sacrificing merit,
00:24:29.020 then does anybody think that's good?
00:24:32.500 If you were to deprioritize merit
00:24:36.740 to get more equity and more diversity,
00:24:40.300 is that still good?
00:24:43.200 Well, you know,
00:24:44.340 there's a crossover point, right?
00:24:46.660 So you're getting something from diversity,
00:24:48.980 and I'll argue that to the death,
00:24:52.020 simply because I've been in those environments.
00:24:55.660 Whenever I'm in an environment
00:24:56.760 where there's more diversity,
00:24:58.220 I'm absolutely picking up more understanding.
00:25:01.280 There's just no way to argue that.
00:25:03.740 You can't argue that.
00:25:06.240 But if you give up merit,
00:25:08.800 here's what I think we need to do.
00:25:11.700 I think I would like to know
00:25:13.040 if my doctor got one of those equity degrees
00:25:18.080 or one of those merit degrees.
00:25:20.620 Don't you think we should make a difference?
00:25:22.900 Wouldn't you like to know?
00:25:24.260 Oh, doctor, I see you have a degree.
00:25:26.340 Did you get one of the equity types
00:25:27.820 or one of the merit types?
00:25:30.860 Now, this will never happen, of course.
00:25:33.500 But there are so many things
00:25:34.740 that could be solved by truth and labeling, right?
00:25:38.460 If the only thing I'm asking for
00:25:40.040 is truth and labeling,
00:25:42.160 why would that be a problem?
00:25:43.560 Let the free market decide.
00:25:46.340 If they think that somebody
00:25:47.640 who went to a sort of equity-priority school
00:25:50.920 got more out of the equity and the diversity,
00:25:54.640 because there is a lot to get there,
00:25:56.580 then they gave up on maybe a little bit,
00:25:59.200 you know, in the rankings or the academics.
00:26:01.880 Yeah, maybe it's not that big a deal.
00:26:03.700 You know, maybe it's a small tweak
00:26:05.340 to the merit to get a lot more diversity.
00:26:10.220 You can make that argument.
00:26:13.420 But I would certainly like, as a consumer,
00:26:15.520 to know the difference.
00:26:17.840 I want to know,
00:26:19.220 was equity and diversity a big deal
00:26:21.780 at the school you went to?
00:26:23.800 And did that have anything to do
00:26:25.340 with the fact that you made it through?
00:26:27.420 Or was it merit only?
00:26:30.880 So today I have a doctor who is a woman, 0.99
00:26:35.520 and she's brown of some type.
00:26:39.500 I've never asked.
00:26:41.200 All right, so she's a person of color,
00:26:43.120 some kind of brown, whatever,
00:26:45.480 and she's a woman.
00:26:48.500 I have never once thought that she was there
00:26:52.460 for any reason other than merit.
00:26:55.220 Never even occurred to me.
00:26:57.260 Never once in my mind did I say,
00:27:00.120 ooh, I wonder if she only got through medical school
00:27:03.020 because of, you know, her... 0.97
00:27:05.620 Never once.
00:27:06.860 Never thought.
00:27:07.360 And she's a great doctor.
00:27:08.340 I like her a lot.
00:27:10.660 But what happens in five years
00:27:12.600 if the doctor's coming out
00:27:14.180 or coming out of, you know,
00:27:15.620 equity, priority college?
00:27:18.080 I'd kind of want to know.
00:27:20.080 I mean, I might not make a different decision.
00:27:22.500 I might make the same decision.
00:27:24.460 I'd kind of like to know.
00:27:25.660 A little truth in labeling would be nice.
00:27:27.200 Speaking of Dr. Jordan Peterson,
00:27:33.760 he is creating an alternative
00:27:35.840 World Economic Forum.
00:27:39.300 And I guess it would be
00:27:40.640 pro-energy that's cheap
00:27:44.640 so that poor people can have access to the energy
00:27:47.080 and pro-families and monogamy.
00:27:51.380 Now, here's my big problem
00:27:53.060 with Dr. Peterson's philosophies of life.
00:27:58.640 He's big on family and monogamy.
00:28:04.340 And I absolutely agree with him
00:28:08.800 that that is the best system
00:28:11.160 for a stable world.
00:28:14.160 But only maybe for 25% of people,
00:28:16.800 and that's the problem.
00:28:18.140 In the old days,
00:28:19.020 maybe it was better for a higher percentage.
00:28:21.280 I don't think,
00:28:22.880 I really don't think
00:28:23.720 more than 25% of the public
00:28:25.380 is going to make a marriage work. 0.76
00:28:27.940 For the rest,
00:28:28.540 it's probably a bad idea.
00:28:30.020 And I don't know what to do about that.
00:28:32.040 It could be that his approach is the best,
00:28:34.460 which is if you don't push as hard as possible
00:28:36.920 and the thing you know works,
00:28:39.460 you're in trouble.
00:28:41.180 Yeah, I get that point.
00:28:42.360 That makes sense.
00:28:43.080 And I do agree
00:28:43.820 that if you get the right two people
00:28:46.140 and you put them in a monogamous marriage,
00:28:48.460 it is the best.
00:28:49.080 I think that that's just sort of obviously true.
00:28:53.560 You know, you can see it in a lot of ways.
00:28:56.940 But let me ask you this question.
00:28:59.560 I'm going to put on my skeptic hat for a moment.
00:29:03.280 Do we all agree that single moms 1.00
00:29:06.100 produce children who have the most criminal records?
00:29:11.520 Would you agree?
00:29:13.240 That correlation seems to be really clean.
00:29:16.380 You don't agree?
00:29:19.920 I'm not saying it's causation.
00:29:21.580 I'm saying the correlation.
00:29:23.880 Would it be easier if I just say correlation?
00:29:27.380 Because the causation is what I'm going to question next.
00:29:30.440 All right, so here's my question.
00:29:33.480 Is it also true of college-educated single moms? 0.99
00:29:37.740 In other words, if you looked at only the single moms 0.99
00:29:41.120 who went to Ivy League colleges
00:29:42.920 and have high incomes,
00:29:45.720 they have high incomes,
00:29:48.200 are their children also more likely to be criminals
00:29:50.340 compared to the average?
00:29:57.940 You think yes?
00:29:58.640 I would make a really, really large bet
00:30:02.760 that they have a low criminal record.
00:30:06.520 I would make a really, really big bet on that.
00:30:09.640 You really think it's going to be the same?
00:30:11.920 So to me, that looks like brainwashing.
00:30:16.380 But I'll allow that you could be right,
00:30:18.360 since I don't have the data.
00:30:19.680 I will allow that you could be right.
00:30:21.820 On the surface, it looks like brainwashing.
00:30:23.740 Because if you think that in all situations
00:30:26.500 simply having one parent
00:30:29.100 is worse than all situations with two,
00:30:32.680 that's not really rational thinking.
00:30:35.940 But if you believe there's a strong correlation
00:30:38.060 when you look at the whole thing,
00:30:39.860 probably yes.
00:30:41.180 I think it's been studied a lot.
00:30:43.180 But here's the thing.
00:30:45.000 There is a lot more going on
00:30:46.900 with those single mothers 0.97
00:30:47.880 than just the fact that they're single mothers. 0.98
00:30:51.380 Whatever it is that made a man
00:30:53.220 not want to be with them.
00:30:55.680 Do I need to finish the sentence?
00:30:59.120 Right.
00:30:59.800 Now, when I talk about the Ivy League woman 1.00
00:31:03.380 who chooses to be a single mother,
00:31:06.340 that's a choice.
00:31:09.540 That's somebody who says,
00:31:10.640 oh, I can handle this.
00:31:11.940 I think I'll choose to be a single mother.
00:31:14.780 Do you think that's the same
00:31:15.980 as somebody who couldn't get a man
00:31:17.800 to live with her even if she tried?
00:31:19.680 There's no way those are the same.
00:31:24.120 There's no way.
00:31:26.260 And what about the man who left?
00:31:29.580 If that woman had stayed with the man who left,
00:31:33.480 they would be happy?
00:31:35.060 And the child would do well?
00:31:37.280 Because there's got to be something
00:31:38.500 about the man who leaves
00:31:39.860 and doesn't take responsibility
00:31:41.880 that suggests that if he had stayed,
00:31:44.460 it would have been pretty bad.
00:31:45.480 because he doesn't take responsibility
00:31:48.640 and obviously was not in love with the woman.
00:31:53.560 So I think our thinking about single parenting
00:31:56.980 is completely mixed up
00:32:01.260 with too many other variables.
00:32:03.540 And if the only thing you're seeing
00:32:04.920 is the single part,
00:32:06.660 you're missing the biggest part of the picture.
00:32:09.340 I think.
00:32:10.060 So I think we're completely misled
00:32:13.140 about what's going on there.
00:32:14.940 I think there's a certain type of person
00:32:16.700 who's more likely to be a single mom 1.00
00:32:19.560 and that that person
00:32:21.160 who's more likely to be a single mom 1.00
00:32:22.980 is unlikely to have an Ivy League degree.
00:32:28.200 Right?
00:32:28.740 They are likely
00:32:29.700 to have a bunch of other characteristics
00:32:33.460 in common with other single women.
00:32:36.120 And I think it's those other characteristics
00:32:39.380 that are probably driving things.
00:32:41.720 Now, that said,
00:32:43.520 the best way to raise a kid,
00:32:45.620 I'm sure,
00:32:47.180 is a mother and a father.
00:32:49.740 I'm not sure the gender thing
00:32:51.060 is so important.
00:32:52.620 But, you know,
00:32:53.400 a two-parent situation
00:32:54.440 because two is better than one.
00:32:56.880 Having two people take care of you
00:32:58.500 that are adults
00:32:59.180 and love you,
00:33:00.840 well, it's got to be better than one
00:33:02.140 if they're both functional.
00:33:03.840 But I think we need to look
00:33:07.300 at that a little bit deeper.
00:33:08.480 It's too simplistic,
00:33:09.920 you know,
00:33:10.480 married versus unmarried.
00:33:15.560 Rasmussen has a poll.
00:33:17.700 It says 48% of the,
00:33:19.460 these are usually likely voters they poll,
00:33:21.860 48% say Biden's handling
00:33:23.780 of classified documents
00:33:24.860 is a, quote,
00:33:25.840 major scandal.
00:33:29.760 What,
00:33:30.940 I'll just give you a little quiz.
00:33:32.960 Now, for those who are in YouTube,
00:33:34.740 if you're new to me,
00:33:36.200 I've developed
00:33:37.180 the smartest
00:33:38.380 livestream audience
00:33:40.740 in the world.
00:33:42.720 And I'm going to prove it again.
00:33:44.600 Not only do they know
00:33:45.860 based on what's happening,
00:33:47.720 and they're smart about that,
00:33:49.400 they can actually
00:33:50.340 see into the future
00:33:52.440 and see data that
00:33:53.580 hasn't even been presented to them.
00:33:56.980 So I'm going to ask this question
00:33:58.540 and watch how cleverly
00:33:59.940 they get the right answer.
00:34:00.780 They've never seen
00:34:02.300 this information before.
00:34:03.560 They've never seen this before.
00:34:05.060 Watch this.
00:34:07.480 What percentage do you think
00:34:08.800 after the Rasmussen polled them,
00:34:10.980 what percentage of American voters,
00:34:13.140 likely voters,
00:34:14.060 do you think
00:34:14.560 say that Biden's
00:34:16.360 classified document situation
00:34:18.740 is no scandal at all?
00:34:20.760 No scandal at all.
00:34:22.960 You did it again.
00:34:25.120 Amazing.
00:34:26.640 It's 24.
00:34:28.540 It's 24.
00:34:29.420 But, you know,
00:34:30.040 those of you who guessed 25,
00:34:31.880 that was really good.
00:34:34.400 You know,
00:34:34.760 you just keep impressing me.
00:34:36.460 Keep impressing me.
00:34:37.420 I don't know how you do it.
00:34:40.240 But 60% of voters
00:34:42.600 believe it's likely
00:34:43.700 the information
00:34:44.300 from the classified documents
00:34:45.640 was used by Hunter Biden
00:34:47.640 in his foreign business deals.
00:34:49.200 How in the world
00:34:53.560 can Joe Biden
00:34:55.220 win the presidency?
00:34:57.900 How in the world?
00:34:59.360 60%
00:35:00.140 believe that he
00:35:01.740 and his son,
00:35:02.600 and I'm going to add that,
00:35:04.060 you know,
00:35:04.800 they must think
00:35:05.460 they're working as a team.
00:35:07.300 60% of voters
00:35:08.700 think that they're
00:35:09.260 selling classified information
00:35:10.720 or it's likely
00:35:11.920 that they're selling
00:35:13.120 classified information
00:35:14.100 to foreign
00:35:14.660 entities.
00:35:16.200 Isn't it over?
00:35:23.260 How does Trump
00:35:24.200 not become president?
00:35:26.520 You know,
00:35:26.980 you're seeing a lot
00:35:27.840 of Trump criticism.
00:35:29.340 A lot of it comes from me,
00:35:30.660 and I think it's deserved,
00:35:31.740 actually.
00:35:32.960 But
00:35:33.320 he still has to run
00:35:35.420 against someone,
00:35:36.620 and I think
00:35:38.960 it's going to be Biden.
00:35:40.980 It looks like
00:35:41.780 it's going to be Biden.
00:35:42.560 How does Trump lose?
00:35:47.940 Like how?
00:35:48.920 The only way this goes
00:35:50.700 is a rigged election.
00:35:53.780 Am I wrong?
00:35:55.500 I don't see anything else
00:35:57.180 that can happen
00:35:57.760 except a massively
00:35:58.740 rigged election.
00:35:59.940 Because there's no way
00:36:00.720 that the powers that be
00:36:02.180 are going to let
00:36:02.680 Trump win again.
00:36:04.440 I mean,
00:36:04.780 without at least
00:36:05.380 trying really hard
00:36:06.280 to influence it.
00:36:09.460 Now,
00:36:10.000 no matter what you say
00:36:10.840 about past elections,
00:36:12.100 I'll just let
00:36:13.180 past elections
00:36:14.000 go by as a
00:36:14.980 separate topic.
00:36:17.440 No matter what's
00:36:18.420 happened in the past,
00:36:19.540 they're going to have
00:36:20.200 to rig it this time.
00:36:21.760 They have to.
00:36:23.360 And you know what?
00:36:24.740 If the Republicans
00:36:25.540 lose a rigged election,
00:36:26.840 you know what I say?
00:36:28.980 Totally deserve it.
00:36:31.300 And I will welcome
00:36:32.680 our new Democrat president,
00:36:34.960 and I'll congratulate
00:36:35.780 him on the win.
00:36:37.060 Because if the Republicans
00:36:38.580 can't figure out
00:36:39.440 how to cheat better
00:36:40.320 or stop the cheating,
00:36:41.300 they're not very capable.
00:36:44.000 They're not very capable.
00:36:45.900 And they don't
00:36:46.580 deserve to win.
00:36:47.860 And I see no action
00:36:49.100 from the Republicans
00:36:49.920 to increase the transparency
00:36:52.340 of the elections
00:36:53.180 so that you know
00:36:54.920 if it was cheating.
00:36:56.700 At this point,
00:36:57.800 the Republicans
00:36:58.740 deserve to lose.
00:37:01.320 They're doing everything
00:37:02.360 in their power to lose.
00:37:03.740 The Republicans,
00:37:04.580 you know,
00:37:05.020 basically it doesn't even
00:37:06.540 look like they're trying,
00:37:07.840 honestly.
00:37:08.260 So there's a video
00:37:14.640 going around
00:37:15.260 that there was a presentation
00:37:16.900 at the World Economic Forum,
00:37:18.540 and everything sounds scarier
00:37:19.800 when it's at the World Economic Forum.
00:37:23.280 And this was extra scary.
00:37:25.160 So there is now technology
00:37:26.520 where you could put on
00:37:27.520 some kind of a wearable device
00:37:28.960 or a earbud
00:37:30.240 that would monitor
00:37:31.580 your brainwaves,
00:37:32.680 and the thinking
00:37:34.560 is that employers
00:37:35.500 will be able to know
00:37:37.240 if you're thinking
00:37:38.120 about work,
00:37:39.820 if you're actually working
00:37:41.540 and thinking about work,
00:37:43.600 or if your mind
00:37:44.640 has wandered
00:37:45.240 to your personal thoughts.
00:37:47.280 And they'll be able
00:37:47.900 to, like,
00:37:48.580 play back your brainwaves
00:37:49.860 after the fact
00:37:50.720 and say,
00:37:51.560 all right,
00:37:52.060 well,
00:37:52.260 at about 3 o'clock,
00:37:54.180 at 3 o'clock,
00:37:55.100 you were mostly
00:37:55.820 just daydreaming
00:37:56.740 about sex stuff,
00:37:58.600 I guess.
00:37:58.940 now add to that
00:38:03.740 that your employer
00:38:04.580 can check
00:38:05.200 your actual actions online,
00:38:07.600 they can check
00:38:08.360 your keystrokes,
00:38:09.780 and they might even know
00:38:10.640 where you are physically.
00:38:12.180 They might track
00:38:12.840 your location.
00:38:14.200 So your employer
00:38:14.920 will know
00:38:15.360 what you're thinking
00:38:16.160 and what you're doing
00:38:17.060 every minute of the day.
00:38:19.480 Roughly speaking,
00:38:20.320 they'll know.
00:38:22.760 So the thinking is
00:38:24.120 that we'll become
00:38:24.700 this mass dystopia
00:38:27.180 with people
00:38:29.020 just hooked
00:38:29.780 into the matrix
00:38:30.440 having to work
00:38:31.140 all the time
00:38:31.780 and all their happiness
00:38:32.580 and quality of life
00:38:34.460 will be destroyed
00:38:35.280 and it's all
00:38:35.900 the World Economic
00:38:36.680 Forum's problem
00:38:37.640 because they let
00:38:38.840 somebody give
00:38:39.320 a presentation
00:38:40.000 in which the person
00:38:40.860 who presented it
00:38:41.520 said,
00:38:42.180 don't assume
00:38:43.320 it'll be all bad.
00:38:47.560 It's pretty hard
00:38:48.420 to hear this
00:38:49.100 and then imagine
00:38:50.600 it could be good
00:38:51.420 in any way.
00:38:54.000 But,
00:38:54.620 let me give you
00:38:55.780 some context.
00:38:57.180 When I got out
00:38:58.260 of college,
00:38:59.020 I was looking
00:38:59.720 for a job
00:39:00.200 at a big bank.
00:39:01.860 I went to work
00:39:02.400 at what was
00:39:03.400 Crocker National Bank
00:39:04.600 at the time
00:39:05.140 before Wells Fargo
00:39:06.900 bought them.
00:39:08.440 And it was when
00:39:09.740 ATMs were just
00:39:11.240 being rolled down.
00:39:13.200 So ATMs were
00:39:14.120 sort of a new thing.
00:39:15.260 Not every bank
00:39:15.900 had one yet,
00:39:16.680 but Crocker
00:39:17.480 was ahead of the curve.
00:39:19.220 Do you know
00:39:19.480 what the biggest
00:39:20.220 debate was
00:39:22.820 about ATMs?
00:39:24.300 Do you know
00:39:24.540 what the biggest
00:39:25.020 controversy was?
00:39:27.180 this technology
00:39:29.820 will be out of control.
00:39:31.560 It's going to steal
00:39:32.480 my money.
00:39:33.640 And then when I complain,
00:39:34.720 nobody will listen
00:39:35.460 to me because
00:39:36.460 it's me against
00:39:37.120 the computer.
00:39:38.760 Right?
00:39:39.020 And all the old
00:39:39.580 people said,
00:39:40.340 you're going to
00:39:41.180 lose your humanity
00:39:42.100 because you don't
00:39:42.760 get to talk
00:39:43.260 to the teller.
00:39:44.640 You won't be able
00:39:45.540 to complain,
00:39:46.520 blah, blah.
00:39:46.960 Now,
00:39:47.520 did any of those
00:39:48.500 things happen?
00:39:50.100 A little bit,
00:39:51.520 but not really.
00:39:52.780 Not really.
00:39:54.000 Yeah,
00:39:54.180 I mean,
00:39:54.360 they happened,
00:39:55.260 but not to the point
00:39:56.260 where it made
00:39:56.700 any difference
00:39:57.220 to the growth
00:39:57.760 of ATMs.
00:39:59.160 Right?
00:39:59.780 By the way,
00:40:00.420 the rule in banks
00:40:01.860 at the time
00:40:03.480 was if you complained
00:40:04.460 about the ATM
00:40:05.160 stealing your money,
00:40:06.960 if they didn't see it
00:40:08.520 on video,
00:40:10.320 like if they didn't
00:40:11.000 have enough information,
00:40:12.780 they gave you
00:40:13.340 your money.
00:40:13.780 If they couldn't
00:40:15.340 prove it one way
00:40:16.120 or the other,
00:40:16.860 they actually just
00:40:17.660 gave you your money.
00:40:18.960 You know,
00:40:19.220 because usually
00:40:19.740 it was like 100 bucks,
00:40:20.820 right?
00:40:21.460 Somebody would say,
00:40:22.100 hey,
00:40:22.280 the ATM took my $100.
00:40:25.200 And if they couldn't tell,
00:40:27.580 they just gave you
00:40:28.200 the $100.
00:40:29.280 Because there was
00:40:29.640 nothing else they could do.
00:40:30.580 Otherwise,
00:40:31.160 they'd have to,
00:40:32.040 they'd have to just
00:40:33.000 get rid of ATMs.
00:40:34.140 Now,
00:40:34.380 eventually,
00:40:35.500 the ATM,
00:40:36.560 you know,
00:40:37.000 keeps track of what it gives,
00:40:38.320 but it also has a video.
00:40:40.240 And the video would,
00:40:41.840 you know,
00:40:42.060 pretty much prove
00:40:42.920 if it stole something
00:40:44.280 from you.
00:40:45.640 So,
00:40:46.120 whenever you see
00:40:46.720 a new technology
00:40:47.560 that looks like
00:40:48.220 it's going to end
00:40:48.980 all our quality of life,
00:40:51.000 we've been through
00:40:52.300 this cycle a lot.
00:40:54.920 Now,
00:40:55.460 I will agree
00:40:56.080 that this looks different.
00:40:58.760 AI doesn't look
00:40:59.620 like anything else.
00:41:01.220 So,
00:41:01.520 anything that
00:41:02.120 was in the past
00:41:03.400 that looked like
00:41:04.480 a pattern
00:41:04.920 probably will be
00:41:06.220 violated by AI.
00:41:08.020 But it's good to know
00:41:09.280 that we've been here before.
00:41:12.440 We're always worrying
00:41:13.580 about the next technology
00:41:14.860 will be the one
00:41:15.500 that ends us all.
00:41:16.360 And I have now
00:41:18.560 an out-of-pocket
00:41:21.160 prediction about AI.
00:41:24.440 You know how AI
00:41:25.760 was going to take
00:41:26.380 all of our
00:41:26.940 physical jobs first
00:41:28.920 because you could
00:41:29.660 build robots.
00:41:31.180 So,
00:41:31.420 the robots will take
00:41:32.260 the dangerous
00:41:33.240 physical jobs.
00:41:34.700 And then,
00:41:35.600 later,
00:41:36.220 the creative jobs,
00:41:37.720 you know,
00:41:38.440 those might
00:41:39.060 stay intact
00:41:40.780 because it would
00:41:41.540 take a long time
00:41:42.240 for AI to get there.
00:41:43.460 it's going to be
00:41:45.100 the opposite.
00:41:47.820 I think AI
00:41:48.820 will take
00:41:49.260 all the smart jobs,
00:41:51.960 coding,
00:41:54.040 psychology,
00:41:55.500 you know,
00:41:55.760 your therapist
00:41:56.320 will be AI.
00:42:00.200 Art,
00:42:01.500 you know,
00:42:01.700 all art,
00:42:02.360 humor,
00:42:03.700 entertainment
00:42:04.080 is all going
00:42:05.560 to be AI.
00:42:06.980 Do you know
00:42:07.320 what people will do?
00:42:09.940 Manual labor. 0.84
00:42:10.860 I think humans
00:42:13.080 will be moved
00:42:14.560 entirely to manual labor. 0.92
00:42:17.180 Do you know why?
00:42:18.700 Because it will be
00:42:19.100 cheaper than robots
00:42:19.980 for a long time.
00:42:21.860 That's all.
00:42:23.280 They'll just be
00:42:23.840 cheaper than robots.
00:42:25.140 I think the economics
00:42:26.320 will be that people
00:42:27.160 will be cheap
00:42:27.820 and robots
00:42:28.360 will be expensive.
00:42:29.540 So,
00:42:30.060 you use your
00:42:30.480 expensive robots
00:42:31.460 to be lawyers
00:42:32.260 and doctors.
00:42:33.860 And by the way,
00:42:34.860 AI has already
00:42:35.620 passed the bar
00:42:36.400 and AI has passed
00:42:38.280 what is the medical
00:42:40.680 licensing?
00:42:42.260 It's already
00:42:42.940 done that.
00:42:45.400 It's already
00:42:46.220 more educated
00:42:46.900 than you are
00:42:47.700 because it's got
00:42:49.140 two degrees,
00:42:50.240 you know,
00:42:50.380 even if you have one.
00:42:52.240 So,
00:42:52.740 yeah,
00:42:53.140 humans are going 1.00
00:42:53.760 to have to do
00:42:54.180 stuff like
00:42:54.680 crawl under
00:42:55.720 floors
00:42:58.740 to get to plumbing.
00:43:01.060 Humans are going
00:43:01.680 to be figuring out,
00:43:02.780 oh, wait,
00:43:03.840 you know,
00:43:04.080 just because the wires
00:43:04.860 don't touch,
00:43:05.600 there's also maybe
00:43:06.260 rats or there's
00:43:07.120 a human element.
00:43:08.520 Yeah,
00:43:09.000 people will just
00:43:09.680 be doing manual
00:43:10.480 labor.
00:43:12.320 Now,
00:43:12.780 here's the
00:43:13.080 interesting part.
00:43:15.200 Do you know
00:43:15.760 what makes
00:43:16.100 humans happy?
00:43:20.400 Doing manual
00:43:21.140 labor.
00:43:22.460 It turns out
00:43:23.280 it makes us
00:43:23.700 very happy.
00:43:25.200 Yeah,
00:43:25.680 as long as we're
00:43:26.380 not working
00:43:26.840 ourselves to death,
00:43:27.940 right?
00:43:28.200 You don't want
00:43:28.580 to be in a slave
00:43:29.220 camp,
00:43:29.640 you don't want
00:43:30.000 to be in,
00:43:30.980 you know,
00:43:31.640 the gulag.
00:43:32.720 But if you're
00:43:33.460 just keeping busy,
00:43:35.520 you know,
00:43:35.780 you're just moving,
00:43:36.700 you're doing
00:43:37.060 a thing,
00:43:37.660 you complete
00:43:38.140 a task,
00:43:39.100 you get a
00:43:39.460 dopamine for
00:43:40.100 completing a
00:43:40.700 task,
00:43:41.460 you're moving,
00:43:42.220 you're completing
00:43:42.700 tasks,
00:43:43.720 it's actually
00:43:44.260 really good for
00:43:44.960 us.
00:43:45.880 So we probably
00:43:46.780 will become
00:43:47.540 the manual
00:43:50.000 laborers and
00:43:50.800 the AI will do
00:43:51.700 all the thinking
00:43:52.200 for us.
00:43:53.640 That's my
00:43:54.280 prediction.
00:43:56.560 So,
00:43:57.180 you know,
00:43:58.560 what's really
00:43:59.060 puzzling,
00:44:01.040 even at this
00:44:01.660 late stage,
00:44:02.660 is we still
00:44:03.600 don't know why
00:44:04.200 Sweden did so
00:44:05.040 well in the
00:44:05.820 pandemic.
00:44:06.240 It's still
00:44:08.020 a mystery.
00:44:09.540 Now,
00:44:09.740 there are a
00:44:09.920 few things we
00:44:10.400 do know about
00:44:10.960 Sweden.
00:44:11.460 I found out
00:44:12.260 and confirmed
00:44:13.040 this this
00:44:13.540 morning,
00:44:14.180 that I saw
00:44:15.280 a list of
00:44:15.780 the fattest
00:44:16.560 countries and
00:44:17.360 the thinnest
00:44:17.800 countries.
00:44:18.620 America is
00:44:19.160 one of the
00:44:19.560 fattest
00:44:19.980 countries in
00:44:20.600 the world,
00:44:21.580 top three,
00:44:22.200 I think,
00:44:22.840 and Sweden
00:44:23.520 is one of
00:44:23.960 the thinnest,
00:44:25.380 one of the
00:44:25.980 thinnest.
00:44:27.960 So I can't
00:44:28.940 understand the
00:44:29.560 whole pandemic
00:44:31.220 situation.
00:44:31.820 Oh,
00:44:32.360 then also,
00:44:33.060 I found out
00:44:34.720 today that
00:44:35.200 Sweden is one
00:44:35.960 of the
00:44:36.180 youngest
00:44:36.480 countries.
00:44:38.140 It's one
00:44:38.360 of the
00:44:38.500 youngest.
00:44:39.460 America is
00:44:39.860 one of the
00:44:40.160 oldest.
00:44:41.240 I didn't
00:44:41.560 realize that.
00:44:42.840 So America
00:44:43.220 is old and
00:44:44.200 fat, and
00:44:44.940 it's one of
00:44:45.300 the oldest
00:44:45.820 and one of
00:44:46.320 the fattest
00:44:46.780 countries.
00:44:48.520 And Sweden
00:44:49.540 is unusually
00:44:51.240 young and
00:44:51.800 unusually thin.
00:44:54.280 But you
00:44:54.820 know,
00:44:54.960 the thing is,
00:44:55.320 I can't
00:44:55.700 figure out
00:44:56.200 how they
00:44:57.380 did so well
00:44:58.180 during the
00:44:58.800 pandemic.
00:44:59.300 That's still
00:44:59.600 sort of a
00:45:00.060 mystery.
00:45:00.640 Oh,
00:45:00.760 another thing
00:45:01.180 I found out
00:45:01.600 about Sweden
00:45:02.080 is that because
00:45:03.200 of where
00:45:03.760 they're located
00:45:04.440 on the
00:45:04.900 planet,
00:45:05.960 they routinely
00:45:07.520 supplement with
00:45:08.540 vitamin D.
00:45:10.020 I think they
00:45:10.680 take like fish
00:45:11.320 oil or something
00:45:11.980 that's nasty.
00:45:13.800 But they
00:45:15.900 have good
00:45:16.540 vitamin D.
00:45:18.120 They're thin
00:45:18.860 and they're
00:45:19.320 younger than
00:45:19.880 other countries
00:45:20.640 that did
00:45:21.020 poorly.
00:45:21.560 But if I
00:45:22.760 had to guess
00:45:23.520 why they did
00:45:24.240 well,
00:45:25.500 probably
00:45:26.080 ivermectin.
00:45:28.080 Probably
00:45:28.640 ivermectin,
00:45:29.320 I think.
00:45:30.060 Could have
00:45:31.080 been hydroxychloroquine.
00:45:33.400 Or it could
00:45:34.140 be because
00:45:34.580 they didn't
00:45:35.420 use masks
00:45:36.120 as much.
00:45:37.900 Could be
00:45:38.500 that.
00:45:41.020 But,
00:45:42.000 I don't
00:45:42.260 know,
00:45:42.460 I don't
00:45:42.700 understand how
00:45:43.360 just because
00:45:43.920 they're thinner
00:45:44.620 and younger
00:45:45.960 and they have
00:45:46.660 good vitamin D,
00:45:47.640 I don't see
00:45:48.060 how they do
00:45:48.740 well in the
00:45:49.360 pandemic.
00:45:49.840 Unless it
00:45:50.260 was ivermectin
00:45:50.960 or hydroxychloroquine
00:45:52.180 were part of
00:45:53.460 the story.
00:45:54.360 All right.
00:45:54.500 There are
00:45:55.920 two new
00:45:56.580 studies
00:45:57.100 about the
00:45:59.340 vaccinations
00:45:59.880 and about
00:46:00.420 COVID
00:46:00.780 and both
00:46:01.820 of them
00:46:02.100 are total
00:46:02.740 BS.
00:46:04.920 You want to
00:46:05.620 hear this
00:46:06.020 BS?
00:46:06.420 I'll tell
00:46:08.600 you,
00:46:08.980 I think
00:46:09.940 we can
00:46:10.220 agree that
00:46:10.760 all the
00:46:11.140 data about
00:46:11.980 the pandemic
00:46:12.520 is sketchy.
00:46:14.160 It doesn't
00:46:14.500 matter where
00:46:14.840 it comes
00:46:15.160 from,
00:46:15.420 it's all
00:46:15.680 sketchy.
00:46:16.760 But this
00:46:17.380 is the
00:46:17.920 craziest
00:46:18.280 thing you've
00:46:18.920 heard yet.
00:46:20.200 Are you ready
00:46:20.520 for this?
00:46:20.900 Now, of
00:46:22.060 course,
00:46:22.380 these are
00:46:23.080 preprints
00:46:23.700 and who
00:46:24.860 knows if
00:46:25.380 they could
00:46:25.600 be repeated
00:46:26.120 or anything.
00:46:26.900 There are
00:46:27.440 two recent
00:46:27.920 studies,
00:46:28.460 one out of
00:46:28.840 Denmark,
00:46:29.440 one out of
00:46:29.800 somewhere else,
00:46:30.860 that said
00:46:31.340 that if
00:46:31.700 you're over
00:46:32.020 50,
00:46:33.920 you actually
00:46:35.480 did better
00:46:36.240 if you got
00:46:38.200 the vaccination
00:46:38.880 than if you
00:46:39.540 didn't.
00:46:40.880 Now,
00:46:41.900 here's how
00:46:42.700 we analyze
00:46:43.500 that.
00:46:45.200 We'll start
00:46:45.860 with what we
00:46:46.400 know for
00:46:46.840 sure,
00:46:47.260 okay?
00:46:47.640 And then
00:46:47.920 this is how
00:46:49.040 you reason.
00:46:49.460 You start
00:46:49.780 with what
00:46:50.080 you know,
00:46:50.900 and then
00:46:51.500 you reason
00:46:51.940 toward the
00:46:52.400 things that
00:46:52.900 you're trying
00:46:53.180 to figure
00:46:53.460 out.
00:46:54.200 What we
00:46:54.660 know is
00:46:56.000 that I
00:46:56.320 got everything
00:46:57.020 wrong about
00:46:57.940 my decisions
00:46:58.620 about the
00:46:59.140 pandemic.
00:47:00.380 So you
00:47:00.680 start with
00:47:01.080 that as
00:47:01.380 your fact,
00:47:02.160 and then
00:47:02.940 we can
00:47:03.280 reason
00:47:03.560 backwards
00:47:04.000 to conclude
00:47:05.780 that both
00:47:06.240 of these
00:47:06.540 studies are
00:47:07.060 BS.
00:47:09.180 Because if
00:47:09.800 I know I
00:47:10.280 got the
00:47:10.620 wrong answer,
00:47:12.200 it can't
00:47:13.360 be true that
00:47:13.840 these studies
00:47:14.360 are true,
00:47:14.880 because that
00:47:15.240 would sort
00:47:16.000 of suggest
00:47:16.460 I made
00:47:17.120 a good
00:47:17.360 decision.
00:47:18.180 And since
00:47:18.540 we know
00:47:18.840 that's not
00:47:19.240 the case,
00:47:19.760 we start
00:47:20.800 with what
00:47:21.120 we know,
00:47:21.600 take the
00:47:21.960 L,
00:47:22.360 I take
00:47:22.740 the L,
00:47:23.840 L,
00:47:24.680 taking the
00:47:25.160 L,
00:47:26.140 clotting and
00:47:26.680 coping.
00:47:27.400 So we
00:47:27.720 know that's
00:47:28.160 true,
00:47:28.840 so then we
00:47:29.400 can reason
00:47:30.220 backwards that
00:47:31.300 the studies
00:47:32.120 are BS.
00:47:32.620 so I
00:47:34.020 reject them
00:47:34.720 completely
00:47:35.420 for the
00:47:37.020 BS that
00:47:37.520 they are.
00:47:40.400 By the
00:47:40.920 way,
00:47:41.200 how many
00:47:41.560 of you
00:47:41.820 understand
00:47:42.560 that I'm
00:47:44.380 accepting that
00:47:45.200 I live in a
00:47:45.800 simulation,
00:47:47.220 and that
00:47:47.700 your reality
00:47:48.460 can actually
00:47:49.260 be real,
00:47:50.760 as real as
00:47:51.340 anything,
00:47:51.820 because we're a
00:47:52.300 simulation,
00:47:53.220 and mine can
00:47:54.080 be real and
00:47:54.720 opposite,
00:47:55.940 and there's
00:47:56.640 no conflict.
00:47:58.160 There's no
00:47:58.820 conflict if I
00:47:59.660 live in a
00:48:00.040 world in
00:48:00.480 which everything's
00:48:01.220 different than
00:48:01.720 everything for
00:48:02.520 you,
00:48:03.120 as long as
00:48:03.980 it doesn't
00:48:04.340 conflict,
00:48:05.700 as long as
00:48:06.400 we can both
00:48:06.880 reproduce,
00:48:08.160 those two
00:48:08.900 worlds can
00:48:09.440 live as
00:48:10.000 completely
00:48:10.460 true,
00:48:11.540 as true as
00:48:12.100 anything else.
00:48:13.040 No less
00:48:13.520 true,
00:48:13.840 no more
00:48:14.140 true.
00:48:19.680 Have you
00:48:20.340 yet watched
00:48:21.000 Brett and
00:48:21.540 Heather? 0.99
00:48:22.260 Well,
00:48:23.440 here's something
00:48:24.060 I learned
00:48:24.580 that other
00:48:26.160 people can do
00:48:26.800 that I can't.
00:48:29.080 Suppose,
00:48:30.920 and let's
00:48:31.360 take as our
00:48:32.600 starting points,
00:48:33.360 again, we'll
00:48:33.780 use the same
00:48:34.260 technique.
00:48:35.100 Since we
00:48:35.500 know that
00:48:36.260 Heather and
00:48:38.440 Brett were
00:48:40.280 correct about
00:48:41.340 the pandemic,
00:48:43.300 so we'll start
00:48:44.100 with the fact
00:48:44.560 that they're
00:48:44.880 correct,
00:48:45.920 then how
00:48:47.740 did you know?
00:48:49.680 How did you
00:48:50.340 know they were
00:48:50.780 correct?
00:48:51.760 Because I'm
00:48:52.340 going to accept
00:48:52.880 as a fact that
00:48:53.720 they were
00:48:53.980 correct,
00:48:54.880 because they
00:48:55.560 have skills.
00:48:57.480 Now, they have
00:48:58.000 skills that I
00:48:58.820 don't have,
00:48:59.300 so I can't
00:49:00.440 do what they
00:49:00.900 do, right?
00:49:02.160 I could not
00:49:02.740 look at data
00:49:03.560 and science
00:49:04.440 at the level
00:49:05.640 that they could
00:49:06.120 look at,
00:49:06.560 and I wouldn't
00:49:06.920 understand it.
00:49:08.060 But apparently
00:49:08.740 they can.
00:49:09.700 But my question
00:49:10.540 is, how did
00:49:11.340 you know that
00:49:11.980 they could,
00:49:13.920 and all the
00:49:14.500 people who
00:49:14.880 don't have
00:49:15.300 podcasts could
00:49:16.240 not?
00:49:17.440 Like, what was
00:49:18.060 it that said
00:49:18.620 to you,
00:49:19.260 the people who
00:49:20.940 are good at
00:49:21.780 this, but
00:49:23.260 also have a
00:49:23.980 podcast,
00:49:25.300 have one point
00:49:27.040 of view,
00:49:27.480 and the
00:49:27.760 people who
00:49:28.280 are, I
00:49:29.020 thought were
00:49:29.520 good at it,
00:49:30.120 but for
00:49:30.480 whatever reason
00:49:31.000 don't have a
00:49:31.620 podcast,
00:49:32.560 are all getting
00:49:33.020 the wrong
00:49:33.380 answers.
00:49:34.340 So, was it
00:49:35.340 the fact that
00:49:35.900 they have a
00:49:36.480 podcast that
00:49:37.840 made you think
00:49:38.640 that they're so
00:49:39.800 good you could
00:49:40.360 just take their
00:49:40.900 point of view?
00:49:42.320 Because I
00:49:42.880 looked at them
00:49:43.340 and I thought
00:49:43.700 to myself,
00:49:44.900 huh, I'm not
00:49:46.000 sure the podcast
00:49:46.760 part is actually
00:49:48.760 telling me as
00:49:49.400 much as it
00:49:49.880 should.
00:49:50.760 In fact,
00:49:51.380 when I
00:49:51.640 analyzed the,
00:49:52.460 when I
00:49:54.040 analyzed the
00:49:55.020 big pharma,
00:49:57.560 I thought,
00:49:58.180 hey, they're
00:49:58.500 making money
00:49:59.000 on these
00:49:59.380 drugs.
00:50:00.640 Are they
00:50:01.280 completely
00:50:01.740 unbiased?
00:50:02.400 And I said,
00:50:02.860 no.
00:50:03.780 If they're
00:50:04.140 making money
00:50:04.860 on a
00:50:06.840 particular point
00:50:07.520 of view,
00:50:07.880 you can't
00:50:08.300 trust the
00:50:08.680 point of
00:50:08.960 view.
00:50:09.540 Am I
00:50:09.880 right?
00:50:10.960 And then I
00:50:11.940 unwisely
00:50:12.600 thought,
00:50:12.980 well, hey,
00:50:14.140 a lot of
00:50:14.600 these people
00:50:15.120 who have,
00:50:15.720 let's say,
00:50:16.500 different views
00:50:17.320 have podcasts
00:50:18.980 and books,
00:50:19.940 and it
00:50:20.500 appears that
00:50:20.940 they're
00:50:21.120 monetizing
00:50:21.740 their point
00:50:22.200 of view,
00:50:23.340 much like
00:50:24.080 the people
00:50:24.440 that are
00:50:24.640 criticizing.
00:50:26.040 Now,
00:50:26.980 you,
00:50:27.800 most of
00:50:28.720 you,
00:50:29.480 could look
00:50:29.920 at that
00:50:30.200 situation
00:50:30.680 and say,
00:50:31.280 okay,
00:50:31.520 the podcast
00:50:32.120 part doesn't
00:50:32.820 count,
00:50:33.580 they're just
00:50:34.160 really good
00:50:34.620 at looking
00:50:34.940 at stuff,
00:50:35.420 and you
00:50:35.740 can tell
00:50:36.100 they're good
00:50:36.440 at looking
00:50:36.820 at stuff,
00:50:39.100 but how
00:50:39.560 did you
00:50:39.780 do that?
00:50:40.980 Because that's
00:50:41.580 the part I
00:50:41.980 can't do.
00:50:43.260 To me,
00:50:43.900 I just saw
00:50:44.420 people had
00:50:44.920 different opinions
00:50:45.580 and I
00:50:45.940 couldn't
00:50:47.540 adjudicate
00:50:48.620 any of them
00:50:49.220 because I
00:50:50.000 don't have
00:50:50.300 the skills
00:50:50.680 they had.
00:50:51.160 If I
00:50:51.800 had the
00:50:52.040 skills they
00:50:52.480 had,
00:50:52.820 I wouldn't
00:50:53.100 need to
00:50:53.400 look at
00:50:53.660 their opinion.
00:50:55.280 Right?
00:50:56.340 If I
00:50:56.960 could judge
00:50:57.580 whether
00:50:57.860 Brett and
00:50:58.420 Heather
00:50:59.580 were correct,
00:51:01.840 if I
00:51:02.480 could judge
00:51:02.960 that,
00:51:04.300 it would
00:51:04.960 mean I
00:51:05.340 had their
00:51:05.740 skills.
00:51:07.400 Wouldn't
00:51:07.860 it?
00:51:08.880 I would
00:51:09.460 have to have
00:51:10.020 at least
00:51:10.440 equal or
00:51:11.000 better skills
00:51:11.700 to judge
00:51:12.780 whether they
00:51:13.280 did it.
00:51:13.700 Because remember,
00:51:14.240 your dog
00:51:14.740 can't judge
00:51:15.600 how you
00:51:17.260 do at
00:51:17.560 work.
00:51:17.900 because your
00:51:19.480 dog doesn't
00:51:19.980 understand your
00:51:20.700 work, so
00:51:22.060 it can't
00:51:22.440 judge it.
00:51:23.720 Right?
00:51:24.200 So I'm like
00:51:24.740 the dog.
00:51:25.920 I'm like a
00:51:26.700 dog watching
00:51:28.140 Brett and
00:51:29.040 Heather go to 0.99
00:51:29.540 work.
00:51:30.460 And the
00:51:31.000 only thing I
00:51:31.520 say is,
00:51:32.720 roof,
00:51:34.080 roof.
00:51:35.760 I'm hungry.
00:51:37.020 I need to
00:51:37.540 go out.
00:51:38.600 That's all I
00:51:39.420 can add to
00:51:39.820 the conversation
00:51:40.440 because I
00:51:40.900 don't have
00:51:41.240 their skills.
00:51:42.100 But you
00:51:43.180 do.
00:51:45.080 Many of
00:51:45.660 you have
00:51:46.760 some kind
00:51:47.480 of heuristic
00:51:49.860 or rule of
00:51:50.460 thumb that
00:51:50.940 you're holding
00:51:51.680 from me
00:51:52.380 because nobody
00:51:53.360 will explain
00:51:54.020 it to me
00:51:54.380 and I feel
00:51:54.800 like you're
00:51:55.780 doing it
00:51:56.120 intentionally.
00:51:57.300 You know
00:51:57.940 something I
00:51:58.480 don't know
00:51:59.040 and you're
00:52:00.160 all not
00:52:00.740 telling me.
00:52:03.480 You do.
00:52:04.820 How do
00:52:05.200 you know
00:52:05.680 that they
00:52:06.180 get the
00:52:06.900 right answer?
00:52:08.020 Like,
00:52:08.280 how could
00:52:08.620 you judge
00:52:09.000 that?
00:52:09.320 I'm just
00:52:09.860 like the
00:52:10.200 dog barking
00:52:10.860 at a
00:52:12.040 computer.
00:52:13.380 I'm like
00:52:13.720 barking at
00:52:14.200 the television.
00:52:14.840 Roof,
00:52:15.180 roof.
00:52:15.800 How do
00:52:16.320 they put
00:52:16.620 those pictures
00:52:17.160 on the
00:52:17.480 television?
00:52:18.400 Roof,
00:52:18.880 roof,
00:52:19.340 roof.
00:52:20.080 That's all
00:52:20.480 I have.
00:52:21.480 But I'm
00:52:21.980 completely aware
00:52:22.780 that I'm
00:52:23.240 just the
00:52:23.580 dog barking
00:52:24.140 at the
00:52:24.440 television.
00:52:25.720 How did
00:52:26.400 you know
00:52:26.940 that they
00:52:27.340 were right
00:52:27.940 and that
00:52:29.040 so many
00:52:30.140 other people
00:52:30.620 were wrong?
00:52:32.120 Now,
00:52:32.400 I heard you
00:52:32.740 say it's
00:52:33.020 because of
00:52:33.380 money,
00:52:33.840 but even
00:52:34.480 that doesn't
00:52:34.960 work for
00:52:35.340 me because
00:52:35.680 they're all
00:52:35.960 making money
00:52:36.460 in their
00:52:36.720 different ways.
00:52:38.540 How'd
00:52:39.020 you do
00:52:39.260 it?
00:52:41.040 No,
00:52:41.540 seriously,
00:52:41.900 how did
00:52:42.240 you do
00:52:42.460 it?
00:52:46.960 Evolutionary
00:52:48.480 biology?
00:52:49.220 That's not
00:52:49.760 an answer.
00:52:51.280 All right,
00:52:51.780 here's the
00:52:52.100 other thing
00:52:52.480 that I
00:52:52.760 can't do.
00:52:54.420 And I've
00:52:54.760 told you
00:52:55.020 this before.
00:52:55.500 When I
00:52:55.720 watched the
00:52:56.140 documentary
00:52:56.680 about Michael
00:52:58.320 Jackson and
00:52:59.060 the allegations
00:52:59.680 against him
00:53:00.420 and children,
00:53:02.160 it was 100%
00:53:03.760 convincing.
00:53:05.280 Boy,
00:53:05.840 was it
00:53:06.160 convincing.
00:53:06.500 so you
00:53:13.240 believe
00:53:13.580 Brett and
00:53:14.000 Heather
00:53:14.220 because they
00:53:14.860 admitted when
00:53:15.680 they were
00:53:16.260 wrong and
00:53:17.740 that increased
00:53:18.520 their credibility.
00:53:20.280 Okay,
00:53:20.580 now we're
00:53:20.900 talking.
00:53:21.680 Let's work
00:53:22.080 with that.
00:53:23.140 So would
00:53:23.520 you say
00:53:23.860 that people
00:53:24.440 who get
00:53:25.900 things wrong
00:53:26.780 and then
00:53:29.040 correct it
00:53:29.680 are more
00:53:30.320 credible than
00:53:31.260 people who
00:53:31.880 are not
00:53:33.480 telling you
00:53:33.880 they got
00:53:34.180 anything
00:53:34.440 wrong?
00:53:34.780 Is that
00:53:36.280 true?
00:53:37.080 And do
00:53:37.460 you think
00:53:37.680 scientists
00:53:38.280 don't correct
00:53:38.960 themselves when
00:53:39.640 the data
00:53:40.040 changes or
00:53:41.240 they find out
00:53:41.780 there's something
00:53:42.180 wrong?
00:53:42.900 Do the
00:53:43.400 scientists who
00:53:45.180 actually work in
00:53:45.860 the field of
00:53:46.320 science, do
00:53:47.980 they get new
00:53:48.560 data and
00:53:49.720 then they just
00:53:50.320 say, that data
00:53:50.980 doesn't agree with
00:53:51.760 my opinion, I'll
00:53:52.500 throw it out.
00:53:53.740 Is that how
00:53:54.260 other scientists
00:53:54.920 work?
00:53:55.740 Or is it
00:53:56.240 possible that
00:53:57.860 you saw
00:53:58.500 Brett and
00:53:59.120 Heather changing 1.00
00:53:59.740 their minds
00:54:00.400 only because you
00:54:01.800 were watching
00:54:02.320 them and that's
00:54:04.500 how all
00:54:04.940 scientists act?
00:54:07.080 That the
00:54:07.860 reason they're
00:54:08.320 scientists is
00:54:09.620 because they're
00:54:10.160 going to respect
00:54:10.640 the data and
00:54:11.540 the process and
00:54:12.860 that when
00:54:13.180 something changes
00:54:13.960 they change
00:54:14.480 with it.
00:54:15.780 Now I
00:54:16.400 thought that
00:54:16.960 regular
00:54:17.420 scientists were
00:54:18.160 also doing
00:54:18.900 that behind
00:54:19.400 closed doors and
00:54:20.960 I just didn't
00:54:21.500 see it.
00:54:22.520 Whereas if you
00:54:23.360 have a podcast
00:54:24.020 you do it in
00:54:25.600 public and
00:54:26.600 then people see
00:54:27.260 it and they
00:54:28.740 say, well
00:54:29.080 that's credible
00:54:29.720 because I see
00:54:31.160 them doing the
00:54:31.940 most normal
00:54:32.580 thing that any
00:54:33.280 scientist does
00:54:34.140 but they're
00:54:35.120 doing it in
00:54:35.580 public where
00:54:37.500 every other
00:54:38.120 scientist in
00:54:38.720 the world who
00:54:39.120 does exactly
00:54:39.780 the same thing
00:54:40.500 change their
00:54:41.420 mind when the
00:54:41.960 data changes.
00:54:43.140 They do it
00:54:43.760 behind closed
00:54:44.360 doors so you
00:54:44.940 can't really
00:54:45.260 trust them.
00:54:46.820 So being on
00:54:47.280 the podcast is
00:54:48.040 what gives them
00:54:48.500 credibility.
00:54:50.840 Now that I
00:54:51.540 hadn't thought
00:54:51.940 of.
00:54:53.300 So just doing
00:54:53.940 it in public
00:54:54.660 makes you trust
00:54:56.160 them because you
00:54:56.840 can see them
00:54:57.420 change their
00:54:57.900 mind but the
00:54:59.400 people who are
00:55:00.040 also scientists
00:55:00.920 who do that
00:55:02.040 every single
00:55:02.700 day because
00:55:03.240 that's exactly
00:55:04.020 what they
00:55:04.360 signed up to
00:55:04.940 do, change
00:55:06.060 their minds.
00:55:07.960 They signed
00:55:08.740 up to change
00:55:09.240 their minds, to
00:55:10.360 find out new
00:55:10.900 things and then
00:55:12.100 adopt those
00:55:12.800 views.
00:55:14.380 Do you think
00:55:14.780 they're not
00:55:15.060 doing that behind
00:55:15.700 these closed
00:55:16.180 doors?
00:55:17.700 That really
00:55:18.260 they just keep
00:55:19.100 their same
00:55:19.480 opinions even
00:55:20.120 when the data
00:55:20.640 changes?
00:55:21.480 They just call
00:55:22.020 themselves scientists
00:55:22.780 but they're
00:55:23.220 really just
00:55:23.660 actors, maybe
00:55:25.080 crisis actors.
00:55:25.920 All right, so
00:55:29.480 that's one way.
00:55:30.260 So one way is
00:55:31.120 that they change
00:55:31.720 their minds in
00:55:32.300 public.
00:55:33.260 What are some
00:55:33.800 other ways you
00:55:34.400 know they're
00:55:34.740 right?
00:55:43.160 And the other
00:55:44.380 people followed
00:55:45.140 the money.
00:55:46.740 So the fact
00:55:47.420 that Brett
00:55:49.520 and Heather had 0.98
00:55:51.280 one sort of
00:55:52.600 business model,
00:55:54.060 do you think
00:55:54.520 that if Brett
00:55:55.640 and Heather
00:55:55.980 had decided
00:55:56.640 that new
00:55:57.860 information showed
00:55:58.780 that the
00:55:59.240 vaccination was
00:56:00.060 the best thing
00:56:00.620 that ever
00:56:00.960 happened to
00:56:01.400 the world,
00:56:02.660 do you think
00:56:03.120 that they
00:56:03.440 would adopt
00:56:04.040 that view?
00:56:05.700 Which would
00:56:06.360 be reputationally
00:56:08.400 and financially
00:56:09.100 devastating to
00:56:10.260 them.
00:56:12.820 So you trust
00:56:14.920 them to the
00:56:15.640 point where
00:56:17.200 they would not
00:56:17.800 follow the
00:56:18.280 money.
00:56:18.820 They would be
00:56:19.220 the only ones.
00:56:21.160 So you believe
00:56:22.100 that you found
00:56:22.940 the only two
00:56:23.640 human who don't
00:56:24.280 follow the
00:56:24.700 money.
00:56:25.640 You do?
00:56:26.440 Okay.
00:56:27.400 Well that is
00:56:27.880 a very good
00:56:28.500 vote for those
00:56:29.820 two.
00:56:31.100 See I don't
00:56:31.620 have that skill.
00:56:33.580 I'm still like
00:56:34.660 the dog barking
00:56:35.360 at the TV.
00:56:36.560 Follow the
00:56:36.940 money.
00:56:37.300 Row, row,
00:56:38.140 row.
00:56:38.740 It's just
00:56:39.120 different money
00:56:39.660 following a
00:56:40.100 different path.
00:56:41.480 To me it's
00:56:42.000 everybody following
00:56:42.660 the money.
00:56:44.400 Now if you
00:56:46.280 thought that
00:56:47.240 Brett and
00:56:49.800 Heather are
00:56:50.720 especially
00:56:51.300 immune from
00:56:52.140 following the
00:56:52.720 money.
00:56:52.940 What about
00:56:53.780 me?
00:56:55.020 Because you've
00:56:55.820 seen me take
00:56:56.540 the view that
00:56:57.120 makes me the
00:56:57.840 least money.
00:56:58.920 And you know
00:56:59.340 it.
00:57:00.040 You know it.
00:57:01.780 You know it.
00:57:03.200 You watch it
00:57:03.980 every day.
00:57:04.840 You see me
00:57:05.660 pissing off my 0.93
00:57:06.460 audience every
00:57:07.220 day intentionally.
00:57:08.600 Do you think I do
00:57:09.220 it to make money?
00:57:11.020 I don't know any
00:57:11.860 business model where
00:57:12.720 that works.
00:57:13.840 I'm basically being
00:57:14.800 CNN right now.
00:57:16.200 I'm being CNN.
00:57:17.000 I'm trying to be
00:57:17.840 balanced and it's
00:57:18.700 just killing me
00:57:19.760 financially.
00:57:21.800 It's horrible.
00:57:24.020 But that's what
00:57:25.860 integrity looks like.
00:57:28.220 In case you've
00:57:28.800 never seen it.
00:57:30.300 In case you've
00:57:30.900 never seen it,
00:57:31.480 that's what it
00:57:31.860 looks like.
00:57:34.540 Somebody says
00:57:35.260 it's my ego.
00:57:36.780 Yeah, my ego is
00:57:37.580 the reason that
00:57:38.380 I'm saying things
00:57:39.860 that make people
00:57:40.380 hate me.
00:57:41.460 Because of my
00:57:42.140 ego.
00:57:45.080 How do you even
00:57:45.920 connect all those
00:57:46.640 dots?
00:57:47.000 That's a lot of
00:57:47.940 dots to connect.
00:57:50.640 Dignity.
00:57:53.540 All right.
00:57:54.940 Well, that's
00:57:55.640 enough on that.
00:57:58.780 The funniest
00:58:00.640 people are the
00:58:01.340 people who tell
00:58:02.980 me that they're
00:58:03.780 going to stop
00:58:04.280 listening to me
00:58:05.120 until I stop
00:58:07.480 talking about
00:58:08.360 the interpretation
00:58:10.560 of data,
00:58:11.200 basically.
00:58:13.240 And I think,
00:58:14.480 do you really
00:58:14.900 think I'm not
00:58:15.380 going to block
00:58:15.840 you for that?
00:58:16.400 I block
00:58:18.080 everybody who
00:58:18.780 says, I
00:58:20.040 liked it when
00:58:20.620 you did
00:58:20.900 this, but
00:58:21.420 you did too
00:58:22.400 much of this
00:58:22.880 pandemic stuff.
00:58:23.840 I just block
00:58:24.560 all of them.
00:58:25.740 So they won't
00:58:26.420 have to deal
00:58:26.860 with it again.
00:58:28.380 Which I think
00:58:29.100 is a fair.
00:58:30.680 That's a fair
00:58:31.440 deal.
00:58:32.140 Because the
00:58:32.740 thing is that
00:58:33.500 if I only do
00:58:36.180 what the
00:58:36.880 complainers tell
00:58:37.720 me to do,
00:58:38.660 this would be
00:58:39.320 the shittiest
00:58:39.900 experience you
00:58:40.620 ever had.
00:58:41.040 like, oh,
00:58:43.160 these three
00:58:43.740 people told
00:58:44.360 me I must
00:58:45.060 do these
00:58:45.500 topics, but
00:58:46.560 never do
00:58:46.980 these other
00:58:47.400 topics.
00:58:48.120 That's not
00:58:48.700 the show
00:58:49.000 you want to
00:58:49.360 see.
00:58:50.800 Do a
00:58:51.360 spaces
00:58:51.700 debate.
00:58:54.000 I've got a
00:58:54.660 prediction.
00:58:56.200 Nobody's going
00:58:56.720 to want to
00:58:57.060 debate me on
00:58:57.600 this.
00:59:01.520 Nobody's going
00:59:02.040 to want to
00:59:02.420 debate me on
00:59:02.960 this.
00:59:06.420 Yeah.
00:59:06.860 Yeah, it's
00:59:09.580 never going
00:59:09.960 to happen.
00:59:10.960 By the way,
00:59:11.640 what do you
00:59:12.260 think would
00:59:12.660 happen if
00:59:14.200 Brett and
00:59:14.820 I, Brett
00:59:15.240 Weinstein,
00:59:15.980 what would
00:59:16.340 you think if
00:59:16.840 we were to
00:59:17.900 compare notes
00:59:18.660 and if we
00:59:20.460 were to say,
00:59:21.060 all right, what
00:59:21.340 do you think
00:59:21.700 is true and
00:59:23.120 what do I
00:59:23.440 think is true?
00:59:24.100 How different
00:59:24.720 would it be?
00:59:26.560 How different
00:59:27.180 is my current
00:59:28.660 opinion from
00:59:30.660 Brett Weinstein's
00:59:31.700 current opinion
00:59:32.680 about everything
00:59:33.520 on the pandemic?
00:59:36.860 You think
00:59:39.920 it would be
00:59:40.120 90% different?
00:59:42.700 I think it
00:59:43.360 would be the
00:59:43.680 same.
00:59:45.880 It would be
00:59:46.460 the same.
00:59:49.640 You don't
00:59:50.240 think it
00:59:50.520 would be the
00:59:50.800 same?
00:59:53.600 There
00:59:54.040 wouldn't be
00:59:54.440 one thing
00:59:55.000 we disagree
00:59:55.520 on.
00:59:56.720 But you
00:59:57.320 don't realize
00:59:57.840 that, do
00:59:58.200 you?
01:00:00.160 What would
01:00:00.740 happen if I
01:00:01.320 debated Alex
01:00:02.120 Berenson?
01:00:04.340 What percentage
01:00:05.460 would we
01:00:06.100 disagree on?
01:00:06.860 here's what
01:00:09.960 I think.
01:00:11.800 I think it
01:00:12.520 would go
01:00:12.760 like this.
01:00:14.620 I've got
01:00:15.280 this information
01:00:16.060 that says
01:00:16.680 these vaccinations
01:00:17.700 are dangerous.
01:00:19.340 And I would
01:00:20.060 say, well, I
01:00:20.760 don't believe
01:00:21.580 any pandemic
01:00:23.640 data.
01:00:24.800 Do you?
01:00:26.420 And then he
01:00:27.140 would say,
01:00:28.040 well, yeah, I
01:00:28.440 believe this
01:00:28.920 data.
01:00:30.220 And I would
01:00:30.940 say, you
01:00:33.180 live in a
01:00:33.620 world in
01:00:34.060 2023 where
01:00:35.060 anybody's
01:00:35.800 data is
01:00:36.700 credible on
01:00:37.920 the pandemic.
01:00:39.420 And in
01:00:40.020 about five
01:00:40.600 minutes, he
01:00:41.280 would agree
01:00:41.660 with me that
01:00:43.040 you can't
01:00:43.440 really trust
01:00:43.920 any of the
01:00:44.460 data.
01:00:46.560 Right?
01:00:47.540 He might
01:00:48.020 start that
01:00:48.520 way.
01:00:48.860 I mean, this
01:00:49.840 was speculation
01:00:50.580 and mind
01:00:51.060 reading, so it's
01:00:51.740 not really
01:00:52.080 fair.
01:00:52.800 But I'm
01:00:53.480 almost positive
01:00:54.560 that if I
01:00:55.840 talk to any
01:00:56.500 of the people
01:00:56.940 that you think
01:00:57.540 are opposite
01:00:58.140 of my
01:00:58.480 opinion,
01:00:59.840 that I
01:01:00.680 have the
01:01:00.960 same opinion.
01:01:02.480 Does that
01:01:03.060 blow your 0.91
01:01:03.400 mind?
01:01:03.620 Is 0.88
01:01:05.200 anybody's
01:01:05.560 mind
01:01:05.800 blown?
01:01:07.840 I don't
01:01:08.440 think we'd
01:01:08.760 have any
01:01:09.040 difference.
01:01:10.360 Everything
01:01:10.840 that you
01:01:11.200 imagined about
01:01:11.900 my different
01:01:12.400 opinion is
01:01:12.940 completely a
01:01:13.860 hallucination,
01:01:14.700 and I've
01:01:15.320 always known
01:01:15.760 that.
01:01:16.780 You know I've
01:01:17.360 always known
01:01:17.760 that, right?
01:01:18.760 That we
01:01:19.360 didn't disagree.
01:01:20.940 The people
01:01:21.560 who think they
01:01:22.240 disagree with
01:01:22.860 me are
01:01:23.600 completely based
01:01:24.680 on rumors
01:01:26.000 or bad
01:01:26.740 information or
01:01:27.380 whatever.
01:01:27.560 Yeah, I'm
01:01:32.840 in 14 to
01:01:33.520 16 movies at
01:01:34.380 the same
01:01:34.660 time.
01:01:36.380 But it
01:01:37.020 says, I
01:01:37.480 don't believe
01:01:38.000 you.
01:01:39.600 Well, let's
01:01:41.120 test it, right?
01:01:42.160 Let's test it.
01:01:43.400 Those of you
01:01:44.000 who think that
01:01:44.680 I should have
01:01:45.440 Brett correct
01:01:47.580 me, tell me
01:01:49.020 one statement
01:01:49.780 you believe he
01:01:50.680 thinks is true
01:01:51.480 that I think
01:01:52.660 is not true.
01:01:53.600 Go.
01:01:54.440 Tell me one
01:01:55.100 statement, just a
01:01:55.920 clean statement,
01:01:56.580 something that
01:01:58.060 Brett Weinstein
01:01:59.200 believes is
01:01:59.800 true that I
01:02:01.300 don't believe
01:02:01.900 is true.
01:02:02.700 Go.
01:02:04.900 Yeah, there's
01:02:05.520 nothing.
01:02:07.140 There's
01:02:07.580 nothing.
01:02:12.140 Ivermectin?
01:02:13.120 You think we
01:02:13.920 have a different
01:02:14.380 opinion on
01:02:14.900 ivermectin?
01:02:17.880 I don't know
01:02:18.600 what that would
01:02:18.980 be.
01:02:20.260 Here's what I
01:02:21.020 think his
01:02:21.460 opinion is, and
01:02:22.140 you tell me if
01:02:23.500 I'm wrong.
01:02:23.880 the ivermectin
01:02:26.480 story is hard
01:02:29.140 to sort out
01:02:29.840 because the
01:02:30.580 studies may
01:02:31.960 not have
01:02:32.300 focused exactly
01:02:33.140 in the right
01:02:33.540 place.
01:02:34.560 Some seem to
01:02:35.400 indicate in a
01:02:36.340 meta-analysis that
01:02:37.360 it's helpful.
01:02:39.440 So far, so
01:02:40.200 far, agree?
01:02:41.460 So far, agree
01:02:42.520 that the studies
01:02:43.560 that show it
01:02:44.720 doesn't work are
01:02:46.140 sketchy.
01:02:47.700 The studies that
01:02:48.780 show it does
01:02:49.520 work are based
01:02:50.900 on a meta-analysis,
01:02:51.960 and then I
01:02:53.260 would say this
01:02:53.840 to Brett, but
01:02:55.180 you know, a
01:02:55.540 meta-analysis
01:02:56.200 introduces
01:02:56.780 subjectivity because
01:02:59.120 the person who
01:02:59.940 does it gets to
01:03:01.040 decide what's in
01:03:01.900 and out of the
01:03:02.440 study, and
01:03:03.380 also, if one
01:03:05.260 big study is
01:03:06.500 bigger than the
01:03:07.060 others, it's
01:03:07.560 really not a
01:03:08.320 meta-analysis,
01:03:09.100 it's one study
01:03:09.780 because it biases
01:03:10.780 it by so much.
01:03:11.760 If I said that
01:03:12.540 to Brett, would
01:03:13.680 he say, no, I
01:03:14.360 disagree with
01:03:14.980 you.
01:03:15.760 A meta-analysis
01:03:17.020 in which one
01:03:17.940 study is so big
01:03:19.920 that it biases the
01:03:20.820 whole meta-analysis,
01:03:21.640 is still really
01:03:22.700 good.
01:03:23.760 He wouldn't say
01:03:24.280 that.
01:03:25.640 Do you know
01:03:26.100 why he wouldn't
01:03:26.640 say that?
01:03:27.900 Because he's
01:03:28.540 smart.
01:03:29.580 Nobody would
01:03:30.020 say that he
01:03:30.400 was smart.
01:03:32.600 And then, do
01:03:35.420 you think I
01:03:35.840 would disagree
01:03:36.380 with him when
01:03:37.040 he said that
01:03:37.580 the studies that
01:03:38.920 say ivermectin
01:03:39.780 doesn't work are
01:03:41.120 sketchy?
01:03:41.900 Do you think I
01:03:42.660 would disagree?
01:03:43.340 No, I think
01:03:43.880 all the data is
01:03:44.680 sketchy, with
01:03:45.760 no exceptions.
01:03:47.320 So we would
01:03:48.120 agree that all
01:03:48.840 the ivermectin
01:03:49.480 data is
01:03:50.380 imperfect.
01:03:53.600 Then we would
01:03:54.400 move to point
01:03:55.060 two.
01:03:55.940 If it's
01:03:56.420 imperfect, should
01:03:58.140 you have the
01:03:58.560 right to try
01:03:59.200 it, knowing
01:03:59.860 that the
01:04:00.360 risks are
01:04:00.960 low?
01:04:01.640 What would
01:04:02.200 I say?
01:04:03.500 What would
01:04:03.840 I say
01:04:04.100 that?
01:04:06.020 Would I
01:04:06.640 disagree?
01:04:08.280 I'd say, yes,
01:04:09.220 of course.
01:04:10.400 Low risk,
01:04:12.060 potential upside,
01:04:13.760 plenty of
01:04:14.400 anecdotal reports,
01:04:15.600 and then
01:04:17.220 Brett would
01:04:18.160 agree with
01:04:18.620 me that
01:04:18.960 anecdotal
01:04:19.520 reports are
01:04:20.080 not
01:04:20.340 confirmation
01:04:21.380 and that
01:04:23.240 the meta
01:04:24.080 analysis is
01:04:24.920 not
01:04:25.140 confirmation
01:04:25.880 and the
01:04:27.260 RCTs that
01:04:28.300 say it
01:04:28.640 doesn't work
01:04:29.240 are not
01:04:30.320 super
01:04:31.260 reliable.
01:04:32.900 So it
01:04:33.500 just comes
01:04:33.880 down to,
01:04:34.440 well, I
01:04:34.740 don't know
01:04:34.940 if it
01:04:35.140 works and
01:04:35.520 I don't
01:04:35.720 know if
01:04:35.960 it does
01:04:36.380 or doesn't,
01:04:37.340 but it
01:04:38.320 should be
01:04:38.620 legal for
01:04:39.100 me to
01:04:39.340 try it.
01:04:40.560 So where
01:04:40.920 would we
01:04:41.260 disagree?
01:04:42.400 Where would
01:04:42.860 we disagree?
01:04:44.460 See, I
01:04:45.260 have a
01:04:45.560 theory that
01:04:47.320 above a
01:04:47.880 certain level
01:04:48.400 of intelligence
01:04:49.060 everybody agrees.
01:04:50.720 It just
01:04:51.380 looks like
01:04:51.840 we don't.
01:04:55.080 I don't
01:04:55.680 think there's
01:04:56.040 ever been a
01:04:56.540 disagreement.
01:04:57.880 Is it
01:04:58.340 blowing your
01:04:58.800 mind?
01:05:00.420 Try
01:05:00.680 something else.
01:05:01.940 That was the
01:05:02.360 best you
01:05:02.680 had.
01:05:03.360 So the
01:05:03.680 best you
01:05:04.080 had was
01:05:04.520 something where
01:05:04.980 we clearly
01:05:05.500 would agree.
01:05:07.320 Try
01:05:07.560 something else.
01:05:08.580 Something else
01:05:09.240 you think that
01:05:09.800 Brett believes
01:05:10.540 is, oh,
01:05:14.080 Brett might
01:05:14.520 say the
01:05:14.940 adverse events
01:05:15.820 justify, all
01:05:16.940 right, let's
01:05:17.180 talk about
01:05:17.540 that.
01:05:18.860 Do you
01:05:19.160 think that
01:05:19.680 Brett believes
01:05:20.720 that the
01:05:21.560 vaccinations are
01:05:22.480 a bad idea
01:05:23.120 for younger
01:05:24.120 people?
01:05:26.180 Yes or no?
01:05:28.940 Would Brett
01:05:29.660 say that
01:05:30.340 vaccinations are
01:05:31.620 a bad idea
01:05:32.300 for younger
01:05:32.800 people?
01:05:33.500 I think he'd
01:05:34.020 say yes.
01:05:34.740 What do you
01:05:35.100 think I'd
01:05:35.440 say?
01:05:36.520 Based on
01:05:37.160 current
01:05:37.440 information,
01:05:38.380 what would
01:05:38.740 I say?
01:05:39.060 I'd
01:05:40.580 agree.
01:05:41.840 I would
01:05:42.400 agree.
01:05:43.100 What did
01:05:43.640 I say
01:05:44.000 during the
01:05:44.600 pandemic,
01:05:45.380 before we
01:05:46.020 had a
01:05:47.300 little bit
01:05:47.600 better
01:05:47.820 information?
01:05:49.020 What did
01:05:49.400 I say?
01:05:49.900 Do you
01:05:50.360 remember me
01:05:50.840 saying, yeah,
01:05:51.380 let's
01:05:51.600 vaccinate
01:05:52.040 those kids?
01:05:53.940 Did you
01:05:54.240 ever hear
01:05:54.500 me say
01:05:54.800 that?
01:05:55.940 Have I
01:05:56.300 ever suggested
01:05:56.960 children should 0.99
01:05:57.620 be vaccinated?
01:05:59.480 Nope.
01:06:00.360 Nope.
01:06:01.440 No.
01:06:02.180 So where
01:06:02.620 would we
01:06:02.960 disagree?
01:06:04.540 Now, here's
01:06:05.720 the second
01:06:06.060 question.
01:06:06.440 people over
01:06:08.320 50, let's
01:06:09.560 say over
01:06:09.880 65, wherever
01:06:10.920 we want to
01:06:11.300 do it, would
01:06:13.500 Brett say
01:06:14.660 that for
01:06:16.300 people over,
01:06:17.180 let's say
01:06:17.460 65, would
01:06:19.200 he say that
01:06:19.660 people over
01:06:20.160 65 did
01:06:22.680 not receive a
01:06:23.460 benefit from
01:06:24.000 the shot?
01:06:25.360 What would
01:06:25.940 he say?
01:06:30.640 I think he
01:06:31.460 would say,
01:06:32.020 I don't know,
01:06:33.540 I think he
01:06:34.060 would say the
01:06:34.820 data shows
01:06:35.680 that they
01:06:36.460 had higher
01:06:37.160 survivability,
01:06:38.380 but what we
01:06:39.720 don't know
01:06:40.320 is any
01:06:42.140 long-term
01:06:42.620 consequences.
01:06:44.640 Yes or
01:06:45.360 no?
01:06:46.960 Do you
01:06:47.660 think he
01:06:47.940 would say
01:06:48.180 that?
01:06:49.400 The data
01:06:50.000 shows, the
01:06:51.180 data is, you
01:06:51.960 know, sketchy,
01:06:53.200 but the data
01:06:54.020 does show
01:06:54.760 that older
01:06:55.520 people got a
01:06:56.200 benefit, on
01:06:57.460 average, but
01:07:00.480 that there
01:07:00.800 might be long-term
01:07:01.620 consequences that
01:07:02.700 could be
01:07:03.120 catastrophic.
01:07:04.500 Would I
01:07:04.920 disagree with
01:07:05.580 that?
01:07:06.320 Would I
01:07:06.680 disagree with
01:07:07.220 that?
01:07:08.340 I think that's
01:07:09.320 the opinion, but
01:07:09.800 I don't really
01:07:10.180 know.
01:07:11.400 No, I would
01:07:11.920 agree with
01:07:12.260 that.
01:07:13.920 I have agreed
01:07:14.800 with that as
01:07:15.380 clearly as
01:07:16.020 possible.
01:07:17.460 So where
01:07:18.060 would we
01:07:18.380 disagree?
01:07:21.720 Is your
01:07:22.340 mind blown
01:07:22.860 yet?
01:07:24.060 Does it
01:07:24.620 blow your 0.91
01:07:25.000 mind that
01:07:25.640 there's no
01:07:26.040 disagreement
01:07:26.500 between me
01:07:27.400 and my
01:07:27.840 biggest critic?
01:07:29.020 He's not my
01:07:29.600 biggest critic,
01:07:30.300 but, you
01:07:30.560 know, just
01:07:30.820 for the
01:07:31.100 purpose of
01:07:31.520 this
01:07:31.700 conversation.
01:07:33.120 Is anybody's
01:07:35.100 mind blown
01:07:35.580 right now
01:07:36.040 at all?
01:07:39.280 Somebody
01:07:39.720 says, do
01:07:40.100 you believe
01:07:40.380 that data?
01:07:41.760 No matter
01:07:42.180 how many
01:07:42.880 times, can
01:07:43.700 I get
01:07:44.020 permission to
01:07:44.580 swear?
01:07:49.980 Permission
01:07:50.420 to swear?
01:07:52.440 All right,
01:07:52.780 too many
01:07:53.040 no's.
01:07:53.700 All right,
01:07:53.940 there are
01:07:54.080 too many
01:07:54.320 no's, I'm
01:07:54.740 not going
01:07:55.280 to do it.
01:07:57.480 I'll do
01:07:58.060 this without
01:07:58.540 swearing.
01:08:00.440 Let me
01:08:01.000 answer all
01:08:01.640 of your
01:08:01.860 questions.
01:08:03.400 There's a
01:08:03.860 new study
01:08:04.340 out, Scott.
01:08:04.940 Do you
01:08:05.220 believe it?
01:08:06.180 No.
01:08:07.200 There's a
01:08:07.660 new study
01:08:08.080 out that
01:08:08.400 says the
01:08:08.720 opposite
01:08:09.040 study.
01:08:09.840 Do you
01:08:10.120 believe it?
01:08:11.460 No.
01:08:12.880 There's a
01:08:13.360 new study
01:08:13.740 that says
01:08:14.100 you were
01:08:14.420 right about
01:08:14.840 everything,
01:08:15.360 Scott.
01:08:15.680 Do you
01:08:15.900 believe it?
01:08:18.040 What do
01:08:18.500 you think
01:08:18.680 I'd say?
01:08:20.000 No.
01:08:21.580 There's a
01:08:22.060 study that
01:08:22.480 disagrees with
01:08:23.120 everything you
01:08:23.540 said, Scott.
01:08:24.000 Do you
01:08:24.180 believe it?
01:08:25.380 What do
01:08:25.820 you think
01:08:25.980 my answer
01:08:26.340 is?
01:08:27.760 No.
01:08:28.160 Try to
01:08:31.860 pick up
01:08:32.140 the
01:08:32.280 pattern.
01:08:33.540 It's
01:08:33.720 all no.
01:08:35.160 It's
01:08:35.460 all no,
01:08:36.380 top to
01:08:36.840 bottom.
01:08:37.860 No
01:08:38.120 exceptions.
01:08:39.180 If it has
01:08:39.660 anything to
01:08:40.300 do with
01:08:40.540 the pandemic,
01:08:41.660 it's all
01:08:42.640 no.
01:08:43.740 No.
01:08:45.100 So you
01:08:45.400 don't ever
01:08:45.820 have to ask
01:08:46.320 me again.
01:08:47.320 If I tell
01:08:48.120 you there's
01:08:48.520 a new
01:08:48.760 study that
01:08:49.320 says wearing
01:08:50.820 masks made
01:08:52.240 your penis 0.99
01:08:52.700 grow, do
01:08:54.440 you have to
01:08:54.860 ask me if
01:08:55.340 I believe
01:08:55.760 it?
01:08:57.900 No.
01:08:59.040 No.
01:09:00.500 If there's
01:09:01.080 a new
01:09:01.320 study that
01:09:01.820 says the
01:09:02.480 vaccinations
01:09:03.100 actually made
01:09:03.880 you smarter,
01:09:05.680 do you
01:09:06.840 have to ask
01:09:07.320 me if I
01:09:07.720 believe it?
01:09:09.280 No.
01:09:11.100 No.
01:09:11.740 You can
01:09:12.000 skip that
01:09:13.060 step.
01:09:13.760 You can
01:09:14.400 skip that
01:09:14.860 step every
01:09:15.640 time.
01:09:16.780 I'm not
01:09:17.480 going to
01:09:17.700 change my
01:09:18.160 mind on
01:09:18.580 this.
01:09:19.300 I'm just
01:09:19.940 not.
01:09:20.700 The
01:09:21.100 information
01:09:21.560 is not
01:09:22.540 credible
01:09:23.300 at all.
01:09:24.860 And
01:09:27.800 basically
01:09:28.620 this is
01:09:29.060 the same
01:09:29.460 approach
01:09:30.040 I've
01:09:30.260 taken on
01:09:30.660 climate
01:09:30.980 change.
01:09:32.640 I think
01:09:33.360 it's
01:09:33.560 hilarious
01:09:33.960 that the
01:09:35.800 world was
01:09:36.340 convinced we
01:09:37.000 can measure
01:09:37.440 the temperature
01:09:38.040 of the
01:09:38.380 world.
01:09:41.500 I mean
01:09:42.120 I don't
01:09:42.480 even need
01:09:42.800 to say
01:09:43.100 anything
01:09:43.340 about that.
01:09:44.820 It's
01:09:45.340 hilarious
01:09:45.820 that anybody
01:09:46.640 ever believed
01:09:47.520 that and
01:09:48.640 that we're
01:09:48.940 measuring it
01:09:49.500 every year
01:09:50.000 and we
01:09:50.620 can tell
01:09:50.920 it's
01:09:51.080 moving a
01:09:51.560 little
01:09:51.700 bit.
01:09:53.500 That's the
01:09:54.120 most
01:09:54.360 absurd
01:09:54.980 thing
01:09:55.840 anybody
01:09:56.220 ever
01:09:56.480 believed.
01:09:57.960 Now if I
01:09:58.460 don't even
01:09:58.760 believe that
01:09:59.380 and that's
01:09:59.800 basically
01:10:00.520 that's
01:10:01.400 accepted as
01:10:02.160 pretty basic
01:10:03.640 science
01:10:04.180 that we
01:10:05.380 okay we
01:10:05.960 can't measure
01:10:06.640 everything but
01:10:07.360 as long as
01:10:08.600 we're consistent
01:10:09.280 with the ones
01:10:09.940 that we are
01:10:10.460 measuring
01:10:10.900 it's not
01:10:12.640 good enough.
01:10:13.440 Not good
01:10:13.820 enough.
01:10:18.020 Has
01:10:18.460 health care
01:10:18.940 declined
01:10:19.540 since
01:10:19.940 Obamacare?
01:10:20.660 Well health
01:10:21.660 care has
01:10:21.980 declined
01:10:22.440 I don't
01:10:23.240 know if
01:10:23.460 it's
01:10:23.620 because
01:10:23.940 of
01:10:24.160 Obamacare.
01:10:27.460 By the
01:10:28.020 way I've
01:10:28.440 heard some
01:10:28.780 of the
01:10:28.980 most horrific
01:10:29.540 health
01:10:29.920 care
01:10:30.140 stories
01:10:30.660 recently.
01:10:34.200 It's
01:10:34.680 crazy.
01:10:37.080 Yeah.
01:10:38.380 I mean
01:10:38.620 I can't
01:10:40.080 tell you the
01:10:40.480 stories I've
01:10:40.980 heard but
01:10:41.420 there's one
01:10:43.080 I heard
01:10:43.360 recently
01:10:43.800 I wish
01:10:44.920 I could
01:10:45.180 tell you
01:10:45.580 but it
01:10:47.360 was a
01:10:47.720 failure of
01:10:48.460 a health
01:10:48.980 care process
01:10:49.780 at a
01:10:50.220 level which
01:10:50.920 I didn't
01:10:52.900 even think
01:10:53.280 was possible.
01:10:55.120 I mean
01:10:55.500 it was
01:10:56.200 incredibly
01:10:57.560 failure
01:10:58.900 failure
01:10:59.280 like
01:11:00.500 oh my
01:11:02.080 freaking
01:11:02.840 god
01:11:03.380 failure.
01:11:04.700 Yeah.
01:11:05.140 And it
01:11:05.380 happens to
01:11:05.760 be my
01:11:06.080 health
01:11:06.320 care
01:11:06.520 provider
01:11:06.960 that
01:11:07.300 did it.
01:11:09.000 So it
01:11:09.360 turns out
01:11:09.900 that there's
01:11:11.340 something called
01:11:11.900 a patient
01:11:13.820 advocate.
01:11:15.020 Have you
01:11:15.160 ever heard
01:11:15.420 of that?
01:11:17.100 At least
01:11:17.480 at Kaiser.
01:11:17.940 there's a
01:11:19.140 patient
01:11:19.420 advocate
01:11:19.920 and
01:11:21.240 apparently
01:11:21.660 you can
01:11:22.800 make things
01:11:23.400 go from
01:11:23.960 nothing
01:11:24.280 happening
01:11:24.680 to
01:11:24.900 something
01:11:25.200 happening
01:11:25.640 by asking
01:11:26.800 to talk
01:11:27.260 to that
01:11:27.580 person.
01:11:29.000 Because
01:11:29.500 things are
01:11:29.920 so bad
01:11:30.540 that you
01:11:31.680 can't even
01:11:32.100 work it out
01:11:32.680 with the
01:11:33.000 people you're
01:11:33.440 working with.
01:11:34.520 You just
01:11:34.780 have to
01:11:35.140 well that's
01:11:40.780 pretty good.
01:11:41.180 like an
01:11:50.580 ombudsman.
01:11:51.500 I don't
01:11:51.800 know if
01:11:52.000 it's like
01:11:52.280 an ombudsman.
01:11:53.520 I think
01:11:53.900 it might
01:11:54.140 be more
01:11:55.100 than that.
01:11:56.680 All right
01:11:57.180 that's all
01:11:57.460 I got for
01:11:57.760 now.
01:11:58.660 YouTube
01:11:59.100 I'll talk
01:11:59.920 to you
01:12:00.140 tomorrow
01:12:00.440 and maybe
01:12:01.920 I'll be
01:12:02.200 right about
01:12:02.600 something
01:12:02.920 tomorrow
01:12:03.380 but not
01:12:04.320 today.
01:12:05.140 Bye for
01:12:05.500 now.
01:12:06.580 Best
01:12:06.860 live stream
01:12:07.320 you've
01:12:07.580 ever seen.
01:12:08.020 you've
01:12:09.520 ever seen.