All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 15, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
55:47
Episode 221 Scott Adams: Woodward’s Bombshell, Low-Information Voters
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, Sandy.
Hey, Joe. Hey, Jeff.
Come on in here. Gather around.
Aaron... And Tyler, I hope you've all got your coffee, your mugs, your chalices, your containers, your cups.
And I hope it's filled with your favorite beverage.
Your coffees, your teas, your hot waters, your who knows what.
Because it's almost time for you-know-what, the simultaneous sip.
Get ready. Here it comes.
Here it comes. Mmm.
Oh, that's the good stuff.
So, one of the biggest stories in the world right now, in the whole world, besides the hurricane.
I won't talk too much about the hurricane, because there's wall-to-wall coverage.
There's not much to say.
We're all thinking about the victims, but there's not much to say about it.
So I'm not going to be talking about that, but I'm not ignoring it either.
Let's talk about the biggest story in the world that's not that hurricane right now, or the biggest story in the country.
Did you hear it?
It was the big bombshell from the Woodward book.
Listen to it. It's a big bombshell.
I don't hear anything.
Oh, that's right.
It's the blank space again.
It's the empty space.
It's the thing where...
You'd expect to hear a story, but where's the story?
And here it is, the non-story.
So apparently Woodward was asked if in any of his investigations he found any Russian collusion.
And he said he looked hard for it and didn't find any.
Now, obviously Woodward cannot dig as deeply as, you know, the law enforcement.
All right, we know that.
So Woodward is not the final word.
But here's the thing.
Maybe you've had a similar experience.
Starting in 2016, I have personally been treated by anti-Trumpers as part of the problem.
And the biggest reason given, at least in the beginning of 2016, was this Russian collusion stuff.
And I was pretty sure there was nothing there.
But the people who were mad at me and mad at the president and mad about Hillary losing, they were so sure it was true that they could see it.
That they didn't need Mueller to investigate They could just see it.
It was in the news.
It had something to do with Don Jr.'s meeting.
It had something to do with Manafort.
What are the odds that Papadopoulos did this?
What are the odds that there would be all this FBI investigation?
To a big part of the country that was hating on me personally, and probably most of you, They could just see it.
It was just there.
Mueller was just going to tie the loose ends together and get a little extra to wrap it up into a nice little impeachment slash prosecution ball.
But the fact of it was just obvious.
You know who it wasn't obvious to?
The most famous investigative journalist in the United States who looked into it and looked really hard to find the thing that the people on, let's say, his side say is obvious.
An investigative journalist wrote a whole book, spent a lot of time investigating this very thing that people said, it's right there, it's obvious.
And he didn't find...
I almost did the zero sign, which would have been bad because you can't do that anymore.
Think about that.
Now, does anybody owe me an apology?
I would say yes.
I would say that I am owed by a pretty large number of people a really big apology.
Now, of course, we can still wait until Mueller does his thing, but keep in mind that whatever Mueller comes up with is going to be in the category of something that nobody saw, because everything we see so far, according to Woodward, Amounts to zero in terms of Russian collusion.
So, I believe I'm already owed an apology.
Because you could say about anybody, well, you know, if you look hard enough, maybe you can find something, but we haven't found it yet.
That would just be a true statement about every single, you know, rich person, every politician, etc.
And, you know, I can't predict the future.
But so far...
I'm owed an apology.
Because the anger and the hatred that people felt toward me, and most of you, I'm speaking for all of you, I think.
Most of you, anyway. That anger was based on what they thought was obvious.
And now Woodward has done a really good job, apparently, of showing that there's nothing obvious Not only is there nothing obvious, but if you're Woodward and you've got all kinds of sources and you can dig pretty hard and you've got millions of dollars on the line, you probably have a team of assistants, you can go really deep if you're Woodward.
And there was nothing there.
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Why isn't that the biggest story?
Why isn't that the headline?
Well, of course you know the answer, right?
Today, I saw on foxnews.com that the Dalai Lama has said that the European refugees should go home.
I'll just let that sit there for a while.
The Dalai Lama has said in public that he thinks the refugees streaming into Europe should go home.
Now, let me clarify, because I'm mischaracterizing what he said, but I'm not inaccurate.
So he did say exactly that, but in addition, if you want the extra context, and you should, he's saying that the Europeans should treat them humanely, accept them, feed them, educate them, and then when things are better, they should go home to help their home country become a better place.
So the Dalai Lama is in favor of humane and generous treatment of the refugees.
But he is saying, let's make this temporary because it's changing Europe.
They should go back and change their own home once that's a possibility.
Now when people say, are you supporting the President's policies on immigration?
Now you can say, well, I'm somewhere between the Dalai Lama and President Trump.
I'm in that range.
Because probably most of you are.
Most of you would like humane treatment of everybody.
Of people, right?
I've never heard anybody who was against humane treatment of people.
You know, I don't know that that's a thing.
So if you were to ask me where's my opinion of immigration, I would say it's not exactly the Dalai Lama's opinion, but it's pretty close.
So instead of saying that I agree with Republicans or I agree with Jeff Sessions or I agree with Trump, I'm just going to say I'm pretty close to the Dalai Lama, which is basically that you can't have unrestricted, gigantic refugee flows without some consequences that you didn't want.
So maybe there's a way to make everybody happy.
And the Dalai Lama seems like a kind person.
So I agree with him.
We should treat everybody humanely to the degree that we have the resources and stuff.
But there's certainly a level of immigration that doesn't work for the receiving place.
I was just in a... Just in an online Twitter discussion with somebody who was anti-Trump, etc., And rather than arguing, I was just asking questions about how their point of view would play out.
So it was somebody who was soft on immigration.
And my question was, what would be the limit on immigration for you?
Would it be unlimited?
And he said, no, not unlimited.
And I said, well, you know, if you're against unlimited open borders, but you're also against being tight on the borders, doesn't that require you to give an opinion about how many people, let's say per year, is okay? And the person I was talking to, it looked like he was trying to avoid that question.
But that's the only question.
If you've said, don't be a hard ass at the border, but also don't just completely open the borders, that's not an opinion, is it?
That's not an opinion.
That's simply two things you don't want.
You don't want the extreme open border.
You don't want to stop people by being a hard ass, especially if they come with families, etc., But you haven't really given opinion if you just don't like those two extremes.
You have to pick something in between, otherwise you haven't given me your opinion.
So I said, what about 40 million?
Would 40 million people, let's say over just a few years, be too much?
And, you know, then the subject gets changed, that sort of thing.
So... This gets me to a bigger question I wanted to talk about.
You've noticed that Trump supporters, Republicans in general, are often referred to as low-information voters.
You've heard that, right?
That Trump supporters are low-information voters?
But here's a test I want you to give yourself when you're talking with other people.
I find this to be consistently true.
And I'll give you a few examples.
I was talking to someone who didn't identify as an anti-Trumper, but in the context it was obvious.
So I said, well, take, for example, Charlottesville.
And I was explaining how it was reported that the president said both sides were fine people, and it was reported that he meant that included the white supremacists were fine people.
And I said to him, well, you know, that's just not what happened.
What actually happened is the President said there were fine people on both sides of the statue question.
Because the whole event was around the statue.
Do you keep the Confederate statue or do you not?
And so when I told him this, it was clearly the first time he had ever heard that interpretation.
Now, forget about whether he agreed with it or disagreed with it.
It was the first time he had heard that interpretation.
How many of you had never heard that interpretation before, that both sides was clearly and obviously about both sides of the statue thing?
Because the alternative explanation that the news has presented to you, the anti-Trump news, is that the President of the United States consciously and intentionally sided with white supremacists on the same week they killed somebody.
That didn't happen.
It would be crazy to think that happened.
And then further, in their telling of the event, further, after having done something that crazy, like a day later or whatever it was, a few days later, I don't remember, he clarified that he does not support white supremacists just as he has clarified 55 times he clarified that he does not support white supremacists just as he has clarified 55 times in the Now that's a crazy interpretation.
My interpretation, as the president, he was saying, hey, let's all calm down.
Let's agree that bad behavior is bad behavior no matter what.
And there are good people on both sides of the statute question.
Not both sides meaning white supremacists.
My interpretation is completely normal and consistent with the facts.
Now, we don't have to agree who's right.
My point is, He had never heard that interpretation.
But you've heard both interpretations, right?
So wouldn't that make you the high information voter in this case?
Let me give you another one.
The same person, and I was talking about the accusation that the president made fun of Serge Kowalovsky, I can't remember his name, the reporter who had the genetic problem with his arm.
And I said, you've probably seen the video that it was reported as fact that the president was making fun of somebody's bad arm.
And I said, but have you seen all the videos in context where he makes the same or similar hand motions about other people and it's just the way he makes fun of dumb people?
And he had not.
How many of you have seen the videos showing that he often does that same gesture and it's not about people with bad arms?
Probably most of you.
Wouldn't you say? I'll bet most of you have seen that.
He had not.
So I had seen his point of view and I've seen my own point of view and your point of view but he had only seen his own point of view.
Ever. Not once had he ever seen What I described that I've seen lots of times.
So which one of us was the low information voter?
All right, let me give you another one.
Talking about the kids in cages and Trump put kids in cages and that topic came up and I mentioned, you know, but of course that was also happening during Obama.
You can almost see his face reboot.
I've talked about this before.
When cognitive dissonance hits him, there's an obvious facial bodily change where the person just goes...
It's almost like you can see a Almost like the brain is rebooting.
And so I said, yeah, Trump put more people in cages than Obama did, but Obama was putting kids in cages as well.
It was the first time he considered that.
Now, I couldn't tell if he'd never heard it, but he'd never considered it as an important part of the story.
And then I further explained, and you know, that treating the refugees in the most humane way creates more refugees, right?
And I said, you know that, right?
That you would be increasing the number of refugees.
And he hadn't really considered that.
And then I said, and you know that the thinking is that if you have fewer refugees, in the long run, that means that there might be fewer children who are raped.
But the trade-off was you're having less child trafficking, less Fewer children getting killed.
And let's say, and here's how I framed it.
I said, in the Trump administration, if he took a hundred, let's say, just any hundred kids, the trade-off was putting a hundred kids separated from their parents, which, here, we'll get rid of my troll.
Putting a hundred kids in cages, which would have, I said, it would have psychological effects.
Some of them would be bad, and that that's a bad situation.
So I agreed with him that any kids in cages is just always a bad situation.
It doesn't matter how they got there, right?
But I said, the alternative, and the only alternative that anybody could think of, was one in which more kids got raped and trafficked and killed.
So I said, yes, it was a conscious decision that having this impact on, say, 100 kids put in cages helped two or three of them not be raped and killed.
And that that was a conscious trade-off.
The person I was talking to had never heard it framed that way.
Had never heard that those were the two choices.
Because the other choice, which he sort of imagined was the good one, is that you just let the families and the kids stay together, which meant releasing them, because there weren't any facilities.
And I said, you realize that that would increase the amount of trafficking.
And that your preferred solution would in fact have fewer kids in cages, and that's good, but at the expense of 2 or 3 out of 100 maybe getting killed or raped.
And I said, did you know that that was a trade-off?
And he did not.
He had not thought of it in those terms.
And he said he'd be open to listening to maybe statistics that would back that up.
But that's the argument.
Now, I too would like to hear statistics to back that up, and I could easily be wrong.
It could be that the number is zero.
Zero people would be raped.
I don't know. I'm no expert on this situation.
But here's the point.
I knew his argument, but he had never heard, had never heard my argument.
Which is largely the same as your argument, I'm sure.
So you can kind of go down the line, I think.
You can go down the line, and you would find that the conservatives are completely aware of the argument on the left.
Wouldn't you say that's true?
Fact check me on this.
I mean, as much as you can, because this is anecdotal.
But fact check me. Isn't it true that the right knows the arguments on the left and they also know their own arguments?
Wouldn't you say that's true?
But I'm finding that it is massively true that the people on the left have never even heard the argument on the other side.
And when was the last time you heard some, have you ever, have you ever heard anybody tell you what I just told you?
Have you ever even heard anybody explain it?
And now keep your eyes open and see if it feels true to you.
That every time you see one of these big controversial situations, you do know what their argument is.
You could disagree with it.
You probably do. But you certainly know what the argument is.
They don't even know what the argument is on the other side.
What's up with that? All right.
And my new book I'm working on, one of the things I'm talking about, is how lots of times you think that you have a difference of opinion with people, and for all practical purposes, that's how it's playing out.
But lots of times the difference of opinion is not what it looks like.
And here's what I mean.
There are People, usually because of their career choices, have been exposed to education on how to make decisions.
Education on how to make decisions.
I would say, for example, a scientist is someone who is trained in how to make decisions because the whole scientific process is about getting rid of the bias, making sure you have all the information, making sure that you've got a process, you know, the scientific process to get rid of the guesswork, etc.
So scientists have been trained how to make decisions.
Engineers have been trained to be objective and test things and make decisions.
Economists, people who were trained in economics, as I was, are also trained to make decisions.
We know how to compare things.
We know how to look at the long term versus short term.
We know how to measure opportunity costs.
We know how to do discount rates.
So economists, and people with business degrees as well, Are people who have been trained to make decisions.
Do you know what profession has not been trained to make decisions?
I'll bet you do.
Journalists. Journalists.
Journalists are never trained in the art of making decisions.
Now I would say lawyers probably are.
You could think of a few more examples of people who are trained in making decisions.
And here are the mistakes that the untrained are making and don't know that they're making it because they've never learned to make decisions.
And when I explain this, a little light's going to go off in your head because it's going to explain a whole lot about what you're observing.
Let me give you an example.
I've talked about this before.
There are people, anti-Trumpers, who say that Trump did a bad job in Puerto Rico with disaster relief.
Anybody who says that Is not trained in making decisions.
Likewise, anybody who says the opposite of that, anybody who says that Trump did a great job of disaster relief in Puerto Rico, anybody who could say that is also not trained in decision making.
Because we don't have another Puerto Rico to compare to.
The only way you could tell if Trump and the Trump administration did a good job or a bad job with North Korea, the only way you could tell, and anybody who's been trained in decision-making will agree with me.
Anybody who has not been trained in decision-making will disagree with what I said because they're not trained.
Here's the point. If you don't have a control case To compare the performance, you can't make any determination because there was no other president trying to save the other Puerto Rico at the exact same time in the exact same situation compared to You know, what President Trump did.
Without that comparison, it is impossible for we, the observers, with what we know, to know if it was a good job or a bad job.
It can't be known.
And if you've never studied how to make decisions, you would imagine it could be known.
But you would just be looking at anecdotal things.
You would just say, well, he's president.
Puerto Rico, people died.
Therefore, it must have been a bad job.
Anybody who could make that connection would not be trained in decision-making.
Here's another one.
Half-pinions.
That's a word I came up with.
An opinion A well-formed opinion would consider the cost of something, all the costs, short-term, long-term, all of the costs, including opportunity costs, the thing you could have done if you hadn't been doing this.
And it would also include the benefits.
If you've included all of those things, You're probably trained in how to make decisions.
You might be an engineer, you might be a scientist, you might be an economist.
But if you've included all the costs, short-term, long-term, opportunity costs, and all the benefits, Psychological, financial, if you've included it all, you might be trained in decision making.
But if you said, hey, why can't we just let people in, let the families stay together, etc., because that's the humane thing to do.
If you're done with your analysis at that point, you've probably never learned to make decisions.
You might be a journalist, for example.
Because the right way to look at that is if you let people in, if you treat them well, what happens?
If you leave out the what happens, you're not really making a decision.
You have a half opinion.
You're picking the part you like.
I like being good to people.
Yeah, I like being good to people.
I don't like children in cages.
I guess we're done here.
I guess we've...
I painted myself into a corner, somebody says.
I have no idea what that means.
Alright. Then...
Yeah, so if your opinion ignores human incentives, then you're not really part of the decision-making crew.
All right. What else was I going to talk about today?
Oh, so I haven't done this yet, but I'm threatening to do this.
Well, so here's some more that's related to the same topic.
I hear a lot of anti-Trumpers will tell me, if I'm talking to them in person, having a national conversation, or even on Twitter, and it goes like this.
They'll say, the President of the United States has told 3,000 lies since he was inaugurated, or whatever the number is.
And I always like to say this.
Well... What exactly was the impact of that so far?
What would the GDP be if that number had been zero?
And you get, okay, so probably all the things you're saying that were lies doesn't seem to be that they affected the economy, did they?
And then you'll hear somebody say, well, okay, there's no way to know that it affected the economy.
But then I can take it a little bit further.
And I will say, you know, economies are built on expectations, right?
And if you're talking to somebody who's learned anything about economics, they'll say, well, yes, the expectations mean a lot.
And then if I say, well, suppose a lot of those alleged fact-checking problems was the president sort of exaggerating how good the economy was, maybe exaggerating that Businesses are bringing jobs back to the United States.
Maybe exaggerating how much difference it makes to car regulations.
Let's say he was exaggerating How quickly he did it or how different it was from Obama.
Let's say he exaggerated how well things are doing now in terms of jobs compared to the number of jobs that were created under Obama.
And let's say he exaggerated to the point where it's just not true.
Suppose he said it's better now on some variable, some economic variable, than it ever was before, but maybe that's not true.
There was a year before that it was better.
What if he had done all of those things?
What would be the net effect of that?
The economy would be better.
So, when somebody is pointing out that the president had 3,000 fact-check problems, If you understand how things work, meaning the economy, how the psychology of expectations drives the economy, you could say, well, how many of the 3,000 were about the economy?
Things that were not true, but they were directionally good persuasion to cause those things to be true.
So if you're looking for what problems were caused by the 3,000 fact-checking problems, I think you'd have to take out the, I don't know, 500 or so that actually made things better, don't you?
Because if you're complaining about the fact-checking, you're complaining about the problems they caused.
But I think you'd have to subtract out all the good things he said about the economy that may have been exaggerations to the point of not being true.
Because those actually did make the country better and they were intended to do that.
Think about it.
Do you include all the fact-checking as a problem when it's obvious that some number of them, unambiguously, were in the right direction to be positive?
Because it made us think things are going well, so it made people invest.
It made people hire people.
It caused other companies to say, hey, everybody's coming back to the United States.
Maybe I should lean in that direction.
All right? Then you say, well, what about North Korea?
Let's take North Korea.
Which of the many, many fact-checking problems, the 3,000 fact-checking problems, made the current situation with North Korea worse?
I can't think of any.
Okay, so maybe none of the Lying, exaggerating, hyperbole.
Okay, maybe none of them had any direct effect on fighting ISIS. Maybe none of it had any effect on North Korea.
It's not clear that anything made any difference with Russia.
I can't see an example of that.
So let's say that world affairs and even trade deals, etc., I can't think of any example where something that was a fact-check problem gave us a bad result in any of that.
Can you? I can't think of any cause and effect going on there.
And you can go right down the line and you'll find that people are really, really concerned about something where they can find no connection to the real world.
In other words, the fact-checking, even if you assumed all the fact-checkers are completely right, even if you assumed their number is roughly true, even if you said that, where's the problem?
You know, it made sense a few years ago to say, we think there might be a problem with this.
But now you don't have to wonder about it.
You can just look. We've had a few years of Trump and everything's heading in the right direction.
And the things that you don't like, you know, maybe you think healthcare, immigration should be better.
You can think of several areas that could be better.
But I don't see any reason to think that what the president has said made those things worse.
Take the worst thing in the country.
What's the worst thing in the country right now?
I would say race relations.
Maybe healthcare, maybe immigration, but I would say race relations is at the top of the list of things that aren't going well under the Trump administration.
How much of that is because the president lied?
I can't think of anything that the president lied about or had a fact-check problem or a hyperbole problem that made race relations worse.
Because all the things I can think of were in the opposite direction.
So if, for example, he said he did great things for African Americans, well, suppose that was an exaggeration.
But still, it's in the direction of making things better.
Better, no worse.
If you say that you're working hard for them, if you say your administration did great things for African Americans, if you say that Obama did less, even if some of that was not exactly true, It's moving in the right direction, isn't it? Isn't it expressly showing love, support?
I'm working hard for the African-American people.
I love Hispanics.
Everything is sad.
Even if you imagined they weren't true, They still would not have made things worse.
They would have made things better.
Because all of his persuasion is in the movement of moving us toward one America and not having racial problems.
Are there any lies in the race situation that made things worse?
Oh yeah, here's one.
Charlottesville. And that was a media lie.
So the media has lied about Charlottesville from the beginning, and that's made things much worse, hasn't it?
If you look at race relations, most of those problems that we have that seem to be an increase over what we've had in the recent past are because of lies.
And those lies are coming from the media and they're very easy to identify.
I described the Charlottesville lie pretty easily.
So lying does matter, but it seems to only make things worse when it's coming from the media.
I can't think of an example where the president said something that didn't pass the fact-checking and it made something in the real world worse.
And that's because, as I often say, even when his facts are wrong, he is directionally accurate.
Let's take the most extreme example where the president is saying that only a few dozen people died because of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico.
The fact checkers are going crazy saying, my God, all these qualified people have looked at it and it seems that lots and lots of people died.
No matter which of those facts you think is true, and I think the obvious answer is it's probably somewhere in the middle.
I don't think the people who claimed all the deaths are really hurricane-related because they're sort of related to bad government, bad infrastructure.
It's not one thing that causes all those deaths.
A lot of things had to go wrong for that whole situation to exist.
So when I see the president say, no, we did a good job with Puerto Rico.
The deaths weren't that many.
Which way is he trying to persuade?
Well, of course, he's trying to defend his administration.
Every administration does that.
But he's also trying to tell a story where the president and all of his other white people in the government We're doing all they could and did a good job for the people of Puerto Rico, which would be the opposite of telling a story where you're trying to make things worse.
He's telling a story that if you believed it, would make you think that the government cares about all of its people.
So, it's enough about that.
Anyway, I'm looking at all the vague things that the critics say about the president.
And start watching these categories form.
Because the critics are running out of actual facts that they can connect to a bad result.
There are lots of things they don't like, like the fact-checking, and they don't like the attitude, and they don't like the tweeting, but they're having real trouble connecting those things to an actual problem.
You know, it's very hard to say, he sent this tweet, and these ten people were killed because of it.
Like, there's nothing like that.
It's all general, vague things.
So, I'm starting to collect a list of the vague things that people say, like, They say that he's impulsive.
The president's impulsive.
Okay. Tie that observation to the bad outcome.
Because every time we hear a story like that, the impulsiveness doesn't seem to be a problem, except for the way it's reported.
Because he'll throw out some ideas, we've heard a number of stories about this, that sound crazy when you hear them out of context.
But the people he talked to said, okay, that doesn't work.
You definitely don't want to do that.
Here's why. And then they didn't do it.
So we haven't seen...
Doesn't he put kids in cages?
You must be coming in late. So we haven't seen an example where the impulsiveness...
Actually got translated into the problem.
Now there may be cases where he didn't have the right information and I think the immigration kids in cages things is a mistake that the administration has to own.
And I think it probably has more to do with not everybody in the chain knew exactly what the implications of these changes would be, probably didn't know how bad it would be for kids, probably just didn't know the details, and should have.
So there's no excuse for anything that happens.
the president has to take responsibility for what goes wrong and what goes right, even if they didn't know what was going on in those details.
Anyway, so my point being that you're going to hear words like, the president is unhinged.
Well, but what problem did that cause?
Was he unhinged and therefore the GDP is lower?
He's unhinged and therefore North Korea is not going well?
No, it seems to be going in the right direction.
He's unhinged and therefore what?
What? Or he's dictatorial.
He's dictatorial, and usually the example these days is he says critical things about the Justice Department and the Supreme Court.
True. And?
And the problem is they take it to the next step.
Yes, the president does things no president has done before.
He's used his right of free speech to push against another organization in the government in public.
Everything he says is public.
He's pushing against them in public so that his opinion gets weight in the public as does the opinions or the work coming out of other groups.
And the problem is what?
I don't know the problem.
I mean, the Supreme Court is still doing its thing, right?
Has anybody at the Supreme Court, has anybody in the Justice Department said, you know, we'll just stop doing our job now?
I've seen nothing like that.
I've seen nothing that would suggest that anything the president has said in a tweet, any pressure he's put, any complaint, any criticism of other parts of the government, I have seen no credible explanation of how any of that has actually turned into a problem.
Personally, I appreciate the transparency.
I like a country where I see the opinion unfiltered of our leaders.
When it's an opinion about something that doesn't have national secret type implications.
These things are all things that are happening, but they don't translate to a problem.
Yeah, maybe he's impulsive, so what?
Yeah, maybe he says things that remind you of a dictator because he's talking about the other institutions.
But? But what?
But what happened?
What was the downside?
All right. So, the last thing I wanted to talk about is that Apple has produced an Apple Watch that has a medical sensor in it that will check your heart.
I think I'm probably going to go out and get one.
I don't like watches, and I never wanted to own an Apple Watch, and I didn't really think it had enough capabilities in it to make it worthwhile.
But now the Apple's watch has an ECG, so it can tell you if your heart is functioning right well before you might have noticed it, and so you could catch problems early, so it could save your life.
Now, apparently this is just the beginning.
There are all kinds of micro devices, sensors that can work with your smartphone.
Imagine the size of that benefit.
I mean, it's gonna be incredible. Did you see there's even one?
There's a little device you can hook to your phone.
Literally, it's like this big and it's flat, but it's like, you know, just this big.
And it's, what do you call it when you do the sonic imaging?
What's the name of that? When you're looking to see what your baby looks like?
Electrocardiogram? Is that it?
So that exists now.
So now we have tiny sensors that will be able to test your blood, test your heart, check your vitals, your pulse, your blood pressure, and even check.
You would even be able to see if you had a broken arm.
You could actually look right through your arm and see if anything's broken.
Now, you probably would still need to get an x-ray, but you could see if there are any big problems in there.
And I thought to myself, Man, we're really getting to the point where doctors are going to be...
Sonograms, thank you.
Ultrasound. Is sonogram the same as ultrasound?
But that's what the device can do.
It can do ultrasound from your phone, which is amazing.
Anyway. When you see all this stuff coming together, it feels like we're close to what I'll call the poor person's healthcare.
And a poor person's healthcare would be You pay per visit for your doctor.
You've got a range of apps and people you can talk to that can walk you through how to use them.
Maybe you've got an online telehealth doctor, you know, my app, Interface by WenHub, which, by the way, is amazing.
You could get medical advice on that, too.
Yeah, we're close to an amazing time.
An amazing time, an amazing time.
Anyway, I'm going to probably mention my app every time I'm on here for a while because we're in that phase.
But if you haven't tried the Interface by WinHub app, you should.
You can sign up for free, be an expert on anything.
I'm going to give you some examples of things you could be an expert on.
I'll bet that somebody will use my app.
So the nature of the app is you can sign up as an expert and set your own price.
And when you're online and available, people can immediately make a video call and they'll pay your price for the minutes that you're on.
And you could be an expert or you could just be talking to people, keeping them company, telling them a story, etc.
But I wondered if people will ever use it to tell their kids a bedtime story.
I'm trying to think of all the uses for the product that we did not anticipate.
And I thought, I'll bet there are parents who would just put it next to the bed and have somebody else tell a bedtime story to their kid, you know, let's say a nice grandmother or something, while they get some other business done, you know, within the earshot, they'd want to be able to hear what's happening.
But I wonder if anybody will do that.
I'll bet they will. And I wonder how many people would use it for a tutor.
How many people in, let's say, low-income households who can't afford a real tutor to come to the house?
It's pretty expensive. But how many of them just need some help for their kid who's trying to get through math or whatever, and they can't help them?
And what do you do? Your kid's doing the homework and just can't figure it out and doesn't have any source.
So there should be apps.
And if somebody signed up to be a mentor or a tutor on the interface by OneHub app, maybe 15 minutes of that person's time would make a big difference.
And what about mentors?
I've often said that people who are in low-income situations, and especially African-American community, if you get locked into the silo of your own community, you don't have access to mentors and advice from any other people.
So some people might want to say, I'm retired.
I don't need to make money.
I'm just going to be a mentor for inner-city youth.
And just sign up. And there may be some inner-city youth who says, hey, this is either free, because you can set your price to zero, by the way.
The interface by Wen Habab, you can set your price to zero if you want.
I don't make any money if you do that, but you know, I still encourage it because it'd be a good use.
Now why you would do that instead of make just a FaceTime call is that one of the advantages of the interface by WinHub app is that you can discover people and then you can make a phone call, but you don't have each other's personal contact information.
They don't know where you live, they don't know what your phone number is, they don't have your email.
They don't have anything. Now, if you wanted to, you could exchange those things during the conversation, but you don't have to.
So if you want something that's quick and anonymous, we do that.
It's anonymous except that your face is going to be there, so you're going to present yourself in your bio.
Dialectic Behavior Therapy, DBT. Yeah, I think Interface by WenHub will be great for a lot of therapy uses.
I think it would be great for people who need a sponsor, if they're addicts, they can't find their sponsor, their sponsor's busy, they're thinking about taking a A drink or doing a drug, and they just need to talk to somebody right away.
So I think that'll be a use.
PTSD, I think that'll be a use.
People who are considering lots of things will be a use.
All right. Great for people who need a friend.
Exactly. I think that seniors...
You might just use it to have a friend.
You know, an hour a day of, can you just talk to me or let me talk to you for an hour?
Just have something like human contact even if it's on video.
Yeah, somebody said suicide prevention and I had suggested that idea also but I'm told so here's why suicide prevention may not be the exactly what you think it is any professional would immediately tell them to go to a emergency room apparently so I think the ethically a professional if somebody said hey I'm thinking about killing myself A professional would probably send them to somebody in person right away,
get to the emergency room, get to a real person.
But it could help. It could at least send them in the right direction, distract them from their bad intentions.
So that could be good. But you could say that on the interface app, correct?
You could say that on the app.
How to score a hot girlfriend.
Somebody could be an expert on that.
You should be able to browse for an expert in the app.
Yeah, the version that we're getting ready to release will improve their browsing function.
So right now we had a...
The first release, we wanted to keep it as simple as possible.
So basically it's like Tinder for experts.
You just, you know, swipe through and find the ones you want.
But as the number of experts increases, That interface doesn't work as well.
So we wanted to start simple so it was easy for people to understand what it was.
But as soon as we start getting some traction, we'll continuously improve the interface as people onboard.
We're not doing vetting of experts.
It's a free market and people can put links to their qualifications.
But you also don't have to pay for the first minute or three minutes.
But the first minute or so of the call, if you see somebody who's obviously a fraud, you can just end the call and you're not going to get charged.
How do I buy stocks of WenHub?
So we're a private company, and we don't have stocks or equity offering, but you can own the tokens that are used within the app, and those tokens might go up in value, they might go down in value, they're not, not, not.
An investment, but it is a way to be linked indirectly to the success of the company without owning equity.
If you own the coins that the app uses and there's more demand for them because there's more people using the app, then the value should go up.
Professional apologizers.
That'd be funny. Alright.
I was just looking at your comments.
Okay.
WenHub may very well change the world.
You know, I think that's...
WenHub or things like it, you know, that might be a class of apps.
It could change the world because if you think about it, this is an app that could totally change healthcare because you could do...
it would make it just simple to do...
to get medical advice by phone.
Right now, you could do it.
It's more expensive.
It's harder. You got to be part of a plan, etc.
So it could change healthcare fairly radically.
It could change education.
It could change mentoring.
It could change how you connect to people who have the resources you need.
It could change job searches.
It could change a lot of things.
So you're right. It could change the world.
All right. And I will talk to you later.
▲
Export Selection