All Episodes
Previous Next
June 16, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
45:38
Episode 70 - Guns, Video Games, Babies and Other Disturbing Topics
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello everybody!
Come on in here.
It's Friday, I think.
And it's time for the simultaneous sip.
It's the best one of the day because it's the first one.
And the first simultaneous sip is fresh and mmm-mmm-mmm.
That's good stuff.
All right, you might know there's a live shooter at yet another high school.
We don't know the details yet, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's a guy.
Just a wild guess.
And that he plays video games.
Another wild guess. One of the things that people ask is whether playing violent video games and watching violent movies causes violence.
And when I was young and didn't know a lot, I said to myself, no way!
There's no way that watching video games can cause you to actually want to be violent because everybody knows the difference between a fake game and reality.
That's before I knew how the brain worked.
Turns out it's almost, I would say, close to 100% chance Yeah, probably close to 100% chance that video games make some people, not most, but some people, more likely to grab a gun and go into a school and shoot people.
Why is that? Simply because they just wouldn't have thought of it before.
They just wouldn't be on the top of their mind.
They might have bad thoughts, they might have guns, they just wouldn't put them together.
But if you spend all day playing a game in which you shoot lots of people with a gun, and then you're in a bad mood, and you have a gun, are you slightly more likely to do the thing that's at the top of your mind?
Yes. Now, that doesn't mean we should ban video games or ban movies or anything.
But let's not be children about it.
If you put somebody who is disturbed and you pair them with access to a gun and a video game or movies in which people are using guns to shoot lots of people, what's the first thing they're going to think about?
So yes, the popular culture does contribute to this stuff.
It's not the reason, it's not the thing that needs to be banned, but let's not kid ourselves.
Our entertainment makes this...
Probably makes it, I don't know, 10 times more likely, something like that.
So we'll learn more about that tragedy that's going on right now.
But let's talk about some other things that are not that tragedy, because it's sad to think about.
How many of you have seen the other video or audio clip, which is also an audio illusion?
So it's not the Vanny Laurel one, but it's another one.
And this is the one...
With brainstorm or green needle.
So most of you probably saw this one.
Now if you haven't heard it, I'll play it.
But I don't know that it's going to work.
You'll be able to hear it. But I don't know if the audio...
The effect will work.
So if you haven't heard it, here's the thing.
I'm going to play the same sound.
I swear to you, this time there's no trick.
It'll always be the same sound every time you hear it.
Nothing will change. But if you concentrate and expect to hear the word brainstorm, You will hear brainstorm very clearly.
And all you have to do is change what you're expecting and say to yourself, all right, this time it's going to be Green Needle.
And you just repeat that in your head.
And when you listen to it, it's Green Needle.
Now, Green Needle and brainstorm...
They're not that close.
So if you can hear yourself and you can go back and forth, as I can, between the two, this is a much stronger audio illusion than even the Laurel and Vanny ones.
So let's see if I can play it.
All right, what do you hear?
here brainstorm or green needle.
Alright let's do it at the same time.
Everybody think brainstorm.
Brainstorm, brainstorm, brainstorm.
Alright? Think brainstorm.
We're all on brainstorm. Everybody's on brainstorm.
Let's hear what he says. Alright, brainstorm.
Clearly. Alright, now everybody think green needle, green needle, green needle.
Everybody, at the same time, green needle, green needle, green needle, green needle.
Green needle.
Clear as day. Alright.
So... So, how many of you could clearly, clearly hear both just by resetting your brain?
I know not everybody can, but for those who can't, see how many can as the answers go by.
Now, somebody said, are you tricking us?
Alright, I promise you. Here are two promises.
If I tell you directly like I am now, I am not tricking you, that will always be true.
If I don't tell you whether I'm tricking you or not, you can always wonder, well, maybe it's a trick, and sometimes it might be something clever.
But if I tell you directly, this is not a trick, which I'm doing right now, it'll never be a trick.
So let's have that bit of trust.
This is real. This is your best example of how what you believe is your objective reality is so malleable that in real time you can change what you hear from one word to a completely different other word.
Now, that is the world I live in all the time.
If you study this stuff, if you're a hypnotist, if you spend decades dealing with this field of knowledge, this is my normal reality.
My normal reality is that if I'm sitting here, I know that you and I are not hearing the same thing.
We're not thinking the same thing and we're not in the same experience.
But most people think they are.
I've left that behind.
Now let me give you an example from Nick Gillespie of Reason, Reason TV and Reason.com I think it is.
He of course made the connection between Laurel and Vanny.
And the topic yesterday with President Trump, was he calling MS-13 animals or was he calling immigrants and general animals?
And as Nick pointed out, we're hearing different things based on what we brought to it.
So those of us who thought President Trump said something that was either offensive or not, that's not the world I live in.
What President Trump said is completely divorced from what we heard.
I heard what I expected to hear.
Other people heard something completely different that they expected to hear.
And it's even more interesting when you replay the MS-13 animals conversation and you play it in its full context, You say to yourself, okay, this is not the same as Laurel and Vanny.
The MS-13 is just a case of something taken out of context.
So you put it back in context, and then you show it to the people who thought he was talking about all immigrants.
Do they say to themselves, oh, I guess I was fooled.
It was taken out of context.
Now that I hear the context, it's obvious he means MS-13.
Well... Some do.
The AP, for example, reversed their story.
CNN clarified their story so that it didn't look so much like a reversal.
But a few people did.
They said, oh shoot, this was just out of context.
But a lot of people, and you saw them on Twitter, a lot of people said, well, MS-13, we shouldn't call them animals.
They're people too.
Now that's not really the kind of argument you would have heard from them before they got caught misinterpreting that video.
So the weird impact was to get people to defend MS-13 so they didn't have to be wrong about the last thing.
Which is kind of mind-blowing to the people observing it who are not experiencing the cognitive dissonance.
But once you start understanding that these little audio illusions are not the exception.
They're not the exception.
They are the rule.
We're all experiencing reality completely differently.
A good example is there's a story I tell about my mother's experience.
It doesn't matter what it is.
There's a famous story from my childhood, something my mother did one day.
And I was talking about that with my brother, and my brother said, no, that's not what happened.
This object was not involved.
It was an entirely different object.
A very different object.
Not even close. Except they both have a handle.
That's about it. And I was positive of my memory.
He has a better memory, so I've changed my opinion to whatever he said must be right.
But we both lived in a world in which we were sure of something, and at least one of us was just completely wrong.
I think it was me in that case.
And our histories and our memories are like that.
Until somebody has observed something in a way that refutes your memory, you can hold on to a false memory forever.
Until you see proof, it's not real.
And then even when you see proof, you're going to interpret it as the proof is not a proof.
So we're walking around in these completely different fictitious little movies in our heads.
Some of us see Trump doing lots of good stuff.
Some of us see a monster who needs to be removed from the public.
Some of us see a Russia collusion involving President Trump.
Other people see an intelligence service democratic Russian collusion to try to remove a fairly elected president.
These things will never be resolved.
Indeed, let me take this to another extreme.
If you take all of these things to their extreme, here's what I believe about reality.
And I know when you hear this, this will not be convincing.
So I know that what I'm saying.
So I'm not trying to persuade you because I know there's no chance.
I'm just telling you where you might end up.
So if you don't hold this opinion yet, Remember, you didn't hold that opinion about that audio illusion long ago either.
So your impression about reality is going to start to evolve.
This is what I've been predicting would happen about now.
A couple years ago I predicted this.
And here's where I am and have been for a long, long time.
If I receive a sealed envelope in the mail, and let's say I know the topic, and it's going to be either good news for me or bad news for me, My view of reality is that the contents of the envelope are uncertain until I see them.
In other words, it is not true that the contents of the envelope are objectively already determined because I haven't seen them.
That the contents of the envelope only become real When I view them.
Now, that would be wrong if I had talked to somebody who viewed them, because their viewing of them would seal it into reality, until something changed.
And somebody's saying, that's magic.
Now, it's not magic.
It's simply a different way of understanding how limited our perceptions are.
So there might be some underlying reality, but it's pretty clear that humans don't have access to it.
So in other words, when we're listening to these audio illusions, we feel like we're experiencing something like reality, but we're not.
With the audio illusions, it's obvious that what we're dealing with is an interpretation of something we don't understand.
And so, while it might be true, That there's some objective reality about the envelope before I look at it.
It could also be true that that objective reality is that it's not an envelope.
That it's not even there.
So there might be an objective reality, but it's not accessible by human brains.
So we just have movies that are coherent within our own minds and that's the best we can do.
Now, let me put a bow on this.
If it were true that reality is more of a perception than an objective thing that we're looking at, then it would also be true, and here's the freaky part, this is my Friday kind of a topic,
if reality is mostly a movie that we're inventing in our heads, even if there is a base reality that we just can't see and never will, if our reality is a movie, it should also be true, wait for it, That we can rewrite history.
So if my view of reality is correct, we can rewrite history under the condition that it hasn't been observed.
So if history has not been observed, we can rewrite it.
So if I notice that there's a leak in my ceiling and there are several possible things that could be causing it, that history of what it was that got us to the point where I noticed the leak is fungible.
It's movable.
It can be rewritten as many times as I need until I open up the ceiling and see the actual leak and I see where it's coming from.
At that point, the reality and the history becomes solid.
Now, has anybody heard of the double?
Yeah, here it is. Somebody beat me to it.
So where I was heading with this was the double slit experiment.
I am not going to try I'm not going to try to explain the double slit experiment, but Google it if you're not aware of it.
So it's an experiment, roughly speaking, in which there are two slits and you put light through them and you measure the photons versus the waves and there's some freaky thing that happens where your observation changes what happened in the past, or it appears to.
Now that's the best explanation that I can give you, but it does seem That physics has confirmed that you can rewrite the past based on what you observe in the present.
Now, imagine what this worldview does for people.
So my worldview is that basically anything is possible in part because I can rewrite my past.
So if I need a new past to make something possible today, as long as there's no observation that makes it impossible, I'll just rewrite the past until it's compatible with what I want in the future.
Now, is any of this real?
Don't know. Because our realities are sort of things we write ourselves.
So would I know if anything I'm saying makes sense, either in the world, objectively, or to you?
No way to know. So here's the other thing.
If my view of the world is accurate, then there are a lot of things that you would think are impossible that I would not think are impossible.
You get that? So one of the implications of my worldview that is really just an artificial movie we're all writing in our heads is that I can rewrite my movie far more flexibly than you could if your view is everything's just determined.
I'm just... just trucking along according to the variables that are coming in.
Now how would that make you act?
If you believed anything's possible versus you believed you don't have any options.
Things are just going to be the way they're going to be.
Well, in my case, I would say, hey, why don't I pursue the best job I could ever want in my entire life?
Let's say I want to be a cartoonist because it's like easy, fun work.
And I want to be one of the top cartoonists in the world.
Seriously? What are the frickin' odds of that happening?
What are the odds that a little boy says, hey, I think I want to be a famous, world-famous cartoonist?
Pretty low. Didn't stop me.
What are the odds when I said to myself, I think I'll write, you know, a book in a field in which I have no experience.
You know, how will that do?
Turned out pretty well.
And when I transition to predicting things about politics, first of all, predicting the future is impossible, right?
But it's not looking that way, is it?
Because I keep predicting the future, and I'm predicting very unlikely things.
You know, Trump's ascension, the North Korean stuff, which I'm still predicting will turn out well after the usual number of walkaways and hiccups.
We should get something we like.
Yeah, then somebody's saying, but maybe I'm creating the future.
Am I influencing the future or predicting it?
And here's the cool thing.
They look exactly alike.
There's no way to know.
There's no way to know if I'm predicting the future or causing it.
Or if your future and mine are different, so I'm not causing anything.
I'm just rewriting my own movie.
All possible in my world.
So this is where the power of positive thinking kind of overlaps with this topic.
The power of positive thinking is that you can essentially author your own future.
You just have to think about it positively, do the things that positive people do, and you'll notice that your environment seems to be serving up things that you needed, things that you wanted.
Now that's not actually what's happening, but that's what it feels like is happening.
When you see how malleable reality is, and that you actually can hear brainstorm, or you can hear green needle, and you just have to want to, then you can also rewire your ego.
You can rewire your optimism, your ambition.
There are a lot of things you can just rewire for optimization.
You don't have to put up with them.
Daily affirmations work.
Thanks for the new job. So somebody here is using these concepts and just got a new job.
Now you can't tell, of course, whether that new job would have happened anyway.
But here's what I would suggest.
The first few times you see yourself authoring your own environment, you're going to think it's a coincidence.
For example, you say to yourself, I want that job that's very unlikely I would get, and then you get that job.
What's the first thing you say to yourself if you achieve the thing you thought was unlikely?
You rewrite your history, and you say, oh, well, it wasn't that unlikely.
I just thought it was unlikely, but I was wrong.
Obviously, it was fairly likely because it happened.
Not necessarily. Keep trying to author your reality, and after a number of times when you see that what you wanted to happen, focused on, really put your mind to, and visualize as much as you can, watch how often it happens, even when you thought it was unlikely.
And the great thing is, even if that's not what's happening, even if you created an illusion that your thoughts were authoring the future, even if it's just an illusion, it's going to make you really happy.
Because you will have authored a life in which you have control over it.
That will make you happy.
Even if none of it is related to a base reality that is not accessible by our tiny little human brains.
Alright, so here's the bigger point.
So we saw President Trump getting elected and all these unusual things like North Korea progress and such.
So our minds were already a little bit attuned to the unusual.
We believe that things that we thought were impossible can actually happen.
So Trump put us all in the frame of mind that, well, I guess reality is not so predictable.
I guess we have more options than it seemed.
So that's the first thing.
Then when we saw this Vanny or Laurel situation, people started really realizing that two people could sit in the same room and watch two different movies on the same screen.
This is the analogy I've been using for a while.
And they can actually experience it.
It's one thing to read about it and have somebody say, you know, in a conceptual level, people are not seeing the same thing.
And you read that and you go, yeah, yeah, yeah, conceptually.
I get it, but it doesn't really affect you, right?
It's just something you read.
And then you experience it, like in real time.
You're standing right next to somebody, you're listening to the same thing, and you're looking, no, that says Vanny.
And the other one says, no, that says Laurel.
What's happening? And then, that one's freaky enough, but the one we did earlier in the Periscope, where you can just make yourself hear brainstorm, or you can, in seconds, just tune your brain to hear Green Needle, and they are so different.
Once you realize how malleable your perceptions are, you have a superpower.
Everybody who experienced this phenomenon just became more powerful.
You don't know it yet, but it happened.
Let me give you an example.
I've talked a lot about the experience with psychedelics.
Now, the reason that psychedelics are powerful is not just that when you're on them, you have an experience that's awesome, if you don't freak out and die, I suppose, but But your experience is a specific kind.
And the experience you have...
I'll talk about psychedelic mushrooms in particular.
That's my only experience.
But people who have done LSD and other psychedelics will report similar things.
And that is that...
That when you're on Psychedelic Mushrooms, or LSD, you recognize the world, you can operate in it.
If you saw a pen, you would know how to pick it up, you would know how to use it, you know how to write.
But everything would look like you're authoring it.
It wouldn't look like it's necessarily an objective quality of the universe.
You would see behind the screen So when you're on hallucinogens, you can see reality behind the screen.
It's like you walked up and you pulled the screen apart and you could see the mechanism behind it.
And you're like, oh shoot, now I get it.
Everything on the other side of the screen is just a perception caused by all this stuff happening behind the screen.
Once you get that model of the world, it doesn't leave after you're no longer on the hallucinogen.
You're seeing some people confirm this.
Look at the comments.
You'll see the people confirming this.
Once you see reality as a construct, meaning something you have put together in your mind, That is independent from whatever base reality there might be.
It's just not accessible to us.
Right? Brains are not...
We didn't evolve to understand reality.
We evolved to just survive, and apparently that's good enough.
Yeah. So once you've seen the base reality...
Now some people... Sort of got the weak version of this by watching the Matrix movies.
Because if you watch the Matrix movies, it's the first time you say to yourself, holy cow, the real reality of the organic humans were connected to machines in that movie, The Matrix.
They're having the same experience as if they were real people operating in what was really their imagination or something like it.
So once you get the mental model that it is possible to have two completely different realities that sort of look alike and feel alike, you start to think, maybe there's something in the real world that's like that movie.
And then when you hear these audio illusions, you start to confirm it.
You also notice that there's a lot of entertainment media that's coming around to the same concept.
That reality is a little bit author-able, if I could say it that way.
Now, the thing that I noticed about candidate Trump early on, and why I started writing about him, is that I could see that he was authoring reality.
In other words, Trump did not find a set of rules and then say, watch me be the best one within these set of rules.
He didn't do that. When Trump entered the reality, the reality started to form around him.
He was authoring reality in real time, and we were making it real by observing it.
He was doing that.
He is still doing that.
He is in our heads in ways that nobody has ever been in our heads.
His reality is not ours.
True, but he is changing our realities.
He's changing them in two different ways.
The haters are changing it in a more hateful way.
The people who like what he's doing are seeing a golden age emerge.
Now, how is it possible that those two worlds can ever come together?
Well, probably they never will, but we might find a way that all of us can get by.
People perceive objective reality in different ways.
That is correct. Which is another way of saying that objective reality may not be anything that any of us can perceive accurately.
We're just using something that's real to create our artificial memories of things.
Now, let me transition from This topic to something that's slightly related, but I'm going to bring it back to what we imagine to be the real world.
And my favorite topic lately, a lot of people's favorite topic, is Candace Owens.
Now, if you're not following her on Twitter, first of all, you should, because it's like all the fun is happening on her Twitter feed, one way or the other.
Because Candace has carved out a position by being a young black female that she can just talk about stuff and a conservative at the moment who used to be liberal.
So she's carved out this unique position in society where she can just say stuff.
That other people can't say.
And she can certainly say stuff that I can't say, or I mean I can legally and every other way, but the risk would be higher than a rational person it should take.
Now, I think yesterday or the other day, she tweeted that she was talking to some friends, and her friends had suggested that, and before I start, let me tell you, I'm not going to give you my opinion on this topic.
I'm going to talk about it, but I'm not allowed to have an opinion on this topic and you're not going to hear one.
Okay? So, before I'm taking down the context, I have no opinions.
I'm just going to talk about what happened.
Just describing the facts.
So, Candace said that she was having some lunch with some friends who suggested that maybe single women who don't have kids might have some biochemical negative effect from that that would make them crazy, essentially.
And then she used as her examples, Sarah Silverman, Chelsea Handler, and Kathy Griffin, who are all without children, I think in all cases by choice.
Now, of course, the world blew up on her and said, you can't be saying things like that because that would suggest that women are only whole if they've had children or whatever it's suggesting.
Now, she's not suggesting anything like that.
She is literally just recounting a conversation and saying, what do you think about that?
And then the world threw up on her because you can't even ask that question, Candice.
And then Candice, the reason that she's so popular, Candice says essentially, yes, I can.
Watch this. I'm going to do it again.
And then she does it again right in front of you.
It's like, I absolutely can talk about this.
Because what I said wasn't even a little bit crazy.
It was something I didn't know the answer to, and so I asked the question in public.
I can't do that?
Who says I can't ask a question in public?
I didn't say I knew the answer.
I asked the question.
So that's the type of attitude that endears her to so many people.
But here's where it gets interesting.
So Jake Tapper mocked her tweet with one of the traditional mocking forms that you've seen.
And this mocking form is you don't criticize it.
You simply state a fact.
And you say, it's just so obvious what the criticism is that I don't even need to define what the problem is.
So Jake's tweet was something like, Candace Owens, Director of Communication for America First, pro-Trump.
So basically, Jake mocked her.
For simply being who she is and having this opinion.
Like those two things can't be together.
And by the way, when I say opinion, that's not exactly correct.
I overstated it.
So I did what I'm hoping you don't do.
She did not. Give an opinion.
She asked a question.
So Jake was mocking her for even essentially addressing this topic, and it gets better.
So I thought to myself, you know, the first time you hear this, that Candace's question, are women who don't have children, does it have some negative effect on them biochemically?
This is her question, not mine.
The first time I heard it, I thought, No, that doesn't sound right.
But I thought, well, it takes me five seconds to Google it.
So I Google it.
And one of the first things that comes up is an article in Time.
So Time magazine, famous, you know, not conservative publication, in 2014 had an article by a woman.
So a woman wrote an article in which she talked about research.
And you always have to be careful about these articles about research because that doesn't mean they're reproducible.
But there was some early indication that women who didn't have children and, and this was the important part of the article, and wanted them, Where they had mental problems because the thing that they wanted so much they didn't get and it even included women who had children but wanted more and couldn't have them for whatever reason.
So those women were very unhappy.
But the women who never wanted kids in the first place, and then didn't have them, they were fine.
So the three people Candace mentions, Kathy Griffin and Chelsea Hentler and Sarah Silverman, I don't know their situations, but to the extent that they chose, and I think they probably all chose it, to be child-free, that should predict that they are actually well-adjusted.
So in other words, the Time article did not agree with Candace about those three people, but it did confirm that it's a legitimate topic of research and that there is an actual mental risk That comes more with the psychological element,
it sounded like. Now, the psychological element and the physical element, I don't think there's as much of a clear distinction between what your body's doing and what your brain is doing.
I always think of the body as just an extension of the brain.
For me, it's just one system.
I don't like to make that artificial separation, because your body helps your brain.
It's really just an accessory to the brain.
So in my mind, the question that Candace asked was first of all, legitimate question.
Second of all, it is the topic of legitimate scientific research.
And lastly, the speculation that her friends were making that she reported that there was some biochemical change about not having children was almost completely right.
The part that they didn't include in their speculation was that it has to do with what you wanted.
So it's more a case of getting what you want versus not getting what you want.
So Candace's speculation that that might be some part of what's making, in her opinion, people bitter about Trump and about the right might be the child thing, but that seems to be not confirmed by the studies in time.
But the larger question was quite valid.
What is the mental, physical, health outcome for women of having children or not having children?
I think that was a fair question.
But in Jake's response, you can see that he dismissed it as on its surface ridiculous to ask the question.
But was it ridiculous when Time Magazine wrote an article about it?
I don't think so. All right.
Tagging the women makes it not fair, Scott.
Yes. Identifying those three specific women was not fair, but I don't think it was intended to be fair, was it?
In the context of these political back and forths, you would expect they would mock her, she would mock them.
As I said before, politics is sort of an insult contest.
If you enter a contest That's called an insult contest, and then you insult somebody.
I'm not going to criticize you the same as if you just walked down the street and said, Hey, you idiot!
Hey, fatso! If you're walking down the street and randomly insulting people, there's something wrong with you.
But if you enter an insult contest, which is what all this Twitter politics is, it's people volunteering...
To be in an insult contest.
So in that context, if Candace says something about the three critics who are very vocal and very involved and very political and around the other side, that's the contest they entered.
Everybody read the same rules.
So was it accurate to mention those three people?
I don't think so. But it also wasn't an accusation.
It was a question.
And we can see from the Time magazine article that it was a reasonable question.
It turns out there was not a correlation, the way she thought, between those three people.
But it was a fair question.
They took it personally and they should.
It was personal, as is much of politics on Twitter.
Somebody said, what is the Bible code error?
So I tweeted to somebody who was seeing patterns and things, and I mentioned the Bible code.
The Bible code is a book that came out, I don't know, 20 years ago, whatever it was.
It might have been 30 years ago.
And the Bible code book imagined that God had put secret coded predictions that you could deduce from putting the Bible words through an algorithm that would do stuff like I'm making this up, but it was stuff like this.
Take the first letter of each word in the sentence, or the third letter, where you take the first of this sentence, the second of this one, the third of this one.
They would run a bunch of algorithms against the Bible and find out they would produce full sentences.
That looked like predictions, that looked like things that had happened or would happen.
And so people said, my God, this can't be a coincidence, all of these full sentences that are hidden in the Bible.
It's obvious that God put a code in there that is being revealed over time.
But... The debunkers said, let's try running this algorithm against any other book.
And they just took war and peace, and they ran the same algorithm against it, and it was full of full sentences and predictions.
So it turns out you can take any large book, run it through the algorithm, and you'll see what appears to be full sentences and messages from God.
So I use the Bible code as an example of where people see a pattern and they can't imagine that it is not meaningful.
They imagine the pattern must mean something.
That's the Bible code. But patterns don't mean something.
Quite often a pattern is nothing but you being reminded of something.
That's it. Just you being reminded of something.
This is similar to my point that analogies are not persuasive.
Analogies are nothing but something that reminded you of something else.
Right? So a banana and a penis are not the same thing even if one reminds you of the other.
You can't make any conclusions about the fact that one reminded you of another.
How long do you think we can make the golden age last?
Well, if it's an age, it's going to be a while.
We'll see. I mean, a lot of where we go ends up to be about stuff like robots and AI and stuff like that.
So there's lots of good stuff ahead.
There's no reason that we have to stop having good times.
Any new books from me this year?
No, but I'll be updating Wynn Bigley for the paperback version, so I'll be adding some, at least a new chapter.
Do you know what's the hardest thing in the world?
Imagine you're me for a moment, and your publisher has asked you to write an update, an updated chapter for your book, Wynn Bigley, for the paperback version when that comes out, many months from now.
How do you do an update on the topic of Trump?
Because every time I sit down to start writing, I think to myself, I'd better check the news because I think everything's already changed.
By lunchtime, everything I've written will be obsolete.
I don't know how to write it until the last minute.
So I'm just waiting to the last minute before I write anything.
QAnon has been debunked.
He should have been debunked.
Yeah. Someday we'll find out who QAnon is.
But I don't think you should assume those predictions are accurate.
Update with the Charlottesville hoax?
Well, I think people are becoming a little more...
Open-minded to the idea that they could have seen things wrong.
So the audio illusions, Trump saying that the MS-13 are animals and people hearing it the wrong way.
I think people are starting to see some examples of how wrong they were.
How wrong they were that Trump would crash the economy, that he would be bad for North Korea.
All the things that people thought were true.
Yeah. All the things that people thought were true, they're seeing they were wrong.
That's going to help. All right.
I'm going to sign off and do something else.
I'm working on another whiteboard presentation that I might do this afternoon.
▲
Export Selection