All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 30, 2019 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:17
Episode 742 Scott Adams: A Strategy to Fix Poverty, Narwal Tusk Attacks, Hong Kong, China Badness
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Look at that view.
That's what I'm looking at today.
A little bit foggy. It's gonna be cold.
But you didn't come here for the view.
Definitely didn't come here for the view.
I think I know why you're here.
And I think I know what time it is.
Let me tell you what time it is.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams and the simultaneous sip.
Yes, the highlight of your day is the part that makes everything better.
And it's pretty easy to do.
Those of you who have already mastered it, you can ignore the pre-flight directions.
But if you're new, listen carefully.
You don't want to get this wrong, because if you try to put your beverage in something that's not really a container, such as your carpet or a tabletop, that's not going to work.
I mean, you're not going to enjoy the simultaneous sip if the thing you're trying to use as your container is your carpet.
Or your tabletop. No.
You need something else.
You need a cover mug or a glass of snifter, stein chalice, tankard, thermos, flask, canteen, grail, goblet, vessel of any kind.
Except for your carpet or your table.
Put it in your vessel.
Your favorite beverage.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the simultaneous sip.
Feel your dopamine starting to surge.
Go! Go! Oh yeah, dopamine online.
All systems go.
So, let's talk about a few things.
Over in Great Britain, they had a terrorist attack with a knife.
So a terrorist with a knife stabbed some people on the London Bridge.
But he was quickly subdued by including...
One man who worked at the Fishmonger's Hall, who took a five-foot narwhal tusk from the wall and went out to confront the attacker.
Yes, you heard it right.
A terrorist attack was thwarted in part by a man with a narwhal tusk.
Now, when the terrorist was planning his attack...
And he was probably trying to think through all the alternatives.
And he was thinking, well, okay, the police, they don't have guns.
Or do they? I don't know.
Maybe they have guns by now.
And I'm going to be in public.
What's my biggest risk?
When he was thinking through his crime, did he even once think, what if...
Somebody grabs a narwhal tusk off of the wall of the fishmonger's hull and comes out and starts hitting me with that narwhal tusk.
What then? What then?
Well, that's what happened.
I believe the reporting is that the guy with the fishmonger's hull narwhal tusk worked there and he was from Poland.
So I think he was a Polish immigrant.
So... This one immigrant who was the terrorist was taken out by a narwhal tusk by a Polish immigrant.
So go immigrants.
Good job, Polish immigrant, if you're a Polish immigrant.
I'm not sure if the reporting is right.
But I've decided that I'm not going to be that far away from a narwhal tusk in case the stuff goes down.
I want to be able to reach behind my door, pull out the narwhal tusk, and go to work, if you know what I mean.
Go to work. Right.
Take care of business? Yep.
So there's that.
Now, how can you tell that this attack did not happen in America?
So the first thing is that the citizens attacked the attacker.
So one had a fire extinguisher.
Yeah, that's right.
Some of the attackers apparently had criminal records themselves.
So it's a very complicated, weird little situation.
But how can you tell that this attack did not happen in the United States?
Here's how you can tell.
Because the attacker was still alive when the police got there in two minutes.
I think if this had happened in the United States, If you give me a narwhal tusk against the guy with two knives, and, you know, I've got a little help, somebody's going to get him down, I don't think I'm going to stop hitting that guy with my narwhal tusk.
There wouldn't be much left of him by the time the police got there.
Anyway, apparently this guy pled guilty to terrorism charges in 2012 in the UK, but served under half of his 16-year...
What? What?
What? Let me read this sentence again because I can't stop saying what before I get to the end of the sentence.
So the terrorist, he pled guilty to terrorism charges in 2012.
So far, so good.
But served under half of his 16-year set.
What? He only got 16 years for terrorism?
What? Terrorism is not a life sentence?
What? I don't know what this sentence is in the United States.
In the United States, if you're convicted for terrorism, do you ever get out of jail?
What? Oh my goodness.
Talk about not handling it right.
Now, maybe it's the same in the United States.
I suppose if you're convicted on a terrorism charge...
But you haven't convicted any...
You haven't done any actual terrorism yet.
I suppose that's good enough not to get life in prison.
But why? If you're convicted on a terrorism charge, should you ever get out of prison?
I mean, I can see why you wouldn't want to use the death penalty.
People have a certain feeling about that.
But why would you ever let them out of prison?
I don't even understand it as a concept.
Because the terrorists...
are not like criminals.
They're not like criminals.
Criminals, maybe they grow out of it, you know, because the older you get, the less violent you are, for example.
But a terrorist isn't going to grow out of it.
They're not going to grow out of their terrorism desire.
They're just going to get out of prison and do some terrorism, right?
So I don't understand that.
In other news, Germany has decided to phase out all of its nuclear power plants.
At what point did Germany decide to just give up?
Is it my imagination, or is Germany just surrendered?
I mean, I think Germany just gave up.
It's like, well, we're not even going to try anymore.
Let's just get rid of all our only source of clean energy that could possibly power us in the future in an economical way.
Let's just get rid of all that.
So that's the wrong decision.
In other news, China apparently sent over 3,000 fake U.S. driver's licenses, but they were intercepted by a customs official.
So why is China sending 3,000 fake driver's licenses to the United States?
So the first question you must ask, we can't do that in the United States?
Why is it that whoever bought these Why did they have to buy them from China?
If you're going to get an illegal driver's license, you can't do that from the United States.
We don't have any underworld people who will make you a fake driver's license.
Yeah, you're getting ahead of me, right?
If it's coming from China, Is there something more to it than just fake driver's licenses?
Is it possible that China would like to get a lot of illegal people voting?
Because even if it didn't change the election result, it would certainly screw us over.
Because once we found out that a lot of people voted illegally, the entire system would look not as credible.
Somebody says, do the licenses say made in China?
Maybe not. So, China, we don't know if this was, you know, government-sanctioned, but you always assume everything that comes out of China is kind of government-sanctioned because they know too much about their people.
So, is China doing anything except bad stuff these days?
Seems pretty consistent.
So, you saw that the last couple days, Bloomberg's been taking a hit from a lot of conservatives and Trump supporters who are saying that they're saying it because he's on video saying it himself, Bloomberg.
And I'm paraphrasing, but basically he wants to tax poor people so that they will live longer.
In other words, he will tax things which are bad for them so that if poor people...
Want to do those things that are bad for them, they can do it, but it's going to take all of their money to do it.
But by taxing things like large sodas or cigarettes or alcohol or whatever, Bloomberg is taxing the poor for their own good.
And a lot of people said, my God, is he really saying that?
Is Bloomberg really saying we should tax the poor for their own good?
Well, I hate to be the party pooper here.
I hate to be the party pooper.
But I swear to God, I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of attacking Bloomberg for being smart.
Can't do it. I can't attack Bloomberg for knowing more about economics than the people who are criticizing him.
Can't do it. All right.
Trust me. I'm not a supporter of Bloomberg.
In the past, I thought he would be a credible president, in the past.
But I think he's aged out of it at 77.
So I'm not supporting him at all.
But let me tell you, he's 100% right.
When he says that taxes are used to manipulate people's life choices because the government has decided it's good for him or good for somebody else.
So I think we have to smarten up a little bit.
Well, let me put it this way.
Let me put it in the starkest terms.
Let's say just take it at the end of this situation.
If you see that Mike Bloomberg makes a claim about business or economics...
So let's say Bloomberg makes a claim about economics.
And remember, economics is part of psychology.
If you raise this price, people's psychology changes and they buy less of it.
So if you see Mike Bloomberg make any kind of a statement claim about economics, and then you see other people criticizing him...
Look at the qualifications of the criticizers.
Are they self-made billionaires in the business world?
Are they economists?
Are they psychologists?
No, they're largely not, because if they were any of those things, they would just be agreeing with them.
If you hear Bloomberg say something about economics and then you hear other people who are not as successful as Bloomberg and don't understand economics say, wow, how crazy that is, you should go with Bloomberg.
I'm not saying vote for him.
I'm not saying agree with everything he says.
This is a very narrow statement.
If Mike Bloomberg makes a public statement or claim about economics or business or the way that world works, and somebody else says he's wrong, who are you going to bet on?
Seriously. You can dislike all of his politics, but don't bet against the one thing he knows more about than you do.
Don't bet against that.
No, I'm not saying that everything he says is going to be right, right?
But when Mike Bloomberg says that the government can or does tax poor people to keep them from doing things that are bad for their health, that's business as usual.
That's business as usual.
That's what we already do, and society completely accepts it.
Do we tax cigarettes so people will smoke less?
Yes. Does it work?
Yes, it does.
Do we tax alcohol because it's bad for people?
Yes, we do.
So, it's not unusual at all to tax poor people to keep them from doing things that they shouldn't be doing, at least in terms of their health they shouldn't be doing.
Now, if you believe that tax policy should not have a social implication, Well, that would be a credible position.
So if you said, in general, I don't ever want tax policy to be determining what I actually do with my life, I think you could make a good case for that.
But be consistent. Be consistent that none of it can have social implications.
So, for example, you would get rid of the mortgage deduction for homes.
Because the mortgage deduction for homes is trying to incent people to a certain behavior, which is buying homes.
If you don't want your tax policy incenting people in lifestyle decisions, you have to get rid of the mortgage deduction.
You also have to get rid of every other business deduction.
You have to get rid of all the things that the tax code does.
I used to know a guy who worked for the IRS. And when you talk to somebody who works for the IRS, and you say, hey, you work for the IRS, what does the IRS do?
What is the function of the IRS? And they will tell you two things.
You think it's one thing, but people who work for the IRS will tell you it's two things.
The one you already knew about is collecting money so that the government can function.
That's the part we all agreed on.
But if you talk to people who work at the IRS and say, what do you do?
They'll say two things. One is that thing, and the other is social policy.
So the IRS is, at least the way we use it.
Now, I'm not saying we should use it that way.
That's a different argument.
I'm just saying what is.
Our current situation is that tax policy is social policy.
It's the same thing. So when Mike Bloomberg says, essentially, tax policy and social policy are merged, that's not crazy.
That's a simple explanation of our current situation, which society has accepted for generations.
There's nothing in that sentence.
So trying to take Bloomberg down because he says he wants to tax poor people so they will live longer is an illegitimate way to restate what he said.
There are plenty of good reasons to attack Mike Bloomberg on policy and preferences and all that.
And by all means, go to it.
But don't make the mistake of criticizing him about economics and business, because a journalist said so.
Who are you going to trust?
The billionaire or the journalist on a business question?
It's crazy. All right.
So, you know, in our hyper-partisan world, it's impossible to support somebody who is not on your team.
So just bear with me.
I think you're all adult enough that you can handle the fact that the people you don't want to be president can sometimes do some good stuff.
Now, there's also a story today.
About AOC's potential competitor got booted off of Twitter.
No, I'm sorry, not AOC's.
Ilan Omar's potential challenger for her seat in Congress.
Got booted off for suggesting that if Omar is guilty of treason, of which there's no evidence that she's guilty of treason.
So let me say that first.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence that anybody would consider credible that Ilhan Omar is some kind of a trader working for Qatar.
Now, I do know there's lots of rumor-mongering on the Internet, and if someday somebody found out that she had done something wrong and there's actual evidence that looks credible, I'm sure I'll tell you.
I'm sure I will tell you.
But at the moment, I'm not aware of any credible evidence.
Somebody says, are you kidding, Scott?
No, I'm not kidding.
There's no credible evidence that Ilhan Omar is a traitor working for Qatar.
There's plenty of talk, and there are plenty of people saying it.
But there's no... Yeah, the Imam of Peace, I'm sorry, is not a credible voice.
I hate to tell you that.
I know a lot of you have been following the Imam of Peace for some time, but I don't know when he's right and when he's wrong, but I will say with confidence that he's not credible.
So because he says it, it has nothing to do with whether it's true.
Those are just unrelated things.
So just disconnect those in your mind.
Credible doesn't mean right or wrong.
Credible means, is it a source which, by its nature, you should say, oh, it comes from that source.
I don't know if it's right or wrong, but at least it's credible.
It's something we should take seriously.
The Imam of Peace, unfortunately, is not in that category.
I'd like him to be, you know, because he says lots of good things about anti-terrorism and stuff.
So I would want him to be.
But he's not. Now, that doesn't mean he's wrong.
I want to be really careful.
I'm not saying he's wrong about anything.
I'm saying that what he's saying should not be assumed in any way to be accurate.
He might be right. Might be wrong, but we can't make any assumption about it, and therefore it's not credible evidence.
Anyway, so Ilhan Omar's opponent, doesn't even matter what her name is, because you'll never hear from her again, she got booted off of Twitter for saying that if Ilhan Omar is guilty of treason for this alleged non-credible accusation of a Qatari influence, that she should be hanged.
Now, should you be kicked off of Twitter if you're running for Congress and you're suggesting that your opponent, under the right circumstances, should be hanged?
I don't know. I'm probably just going to make you mad all morning today, but that feels like a fairly good ban to me.
If you're calling for violence against somebody based on no evidence, it's not good enough that you said it hypothetically.
Hypothetically, if somebody murders somebody, I think they should be killed.
I don't know. I think Twitter's got a case there.
And I know you disagree with me.
I don't even need to look at the comments to know how you're going to react to that.
All right. So here's the thing.
Again, let me be clear.
I'm not a fan of Ilhan Omar.
Not a fan of her politics.
I don't think she's good for the country.
I think that Ilhan Omar is a negative force in the country.
But... And, you know, her personal life looks, let's say, complicated.
Do I care about her personal life?
No, not really.
If Ilhan Omar were doing in Congress all of the things that I thought were good for the country, I wouldn't care about her doing whatever she did in the past.
Personal life, I don't care.
As long as she's doing the job that I would want her to do, but I don't think she's doing that, so I'm not a fan.
All right, here's an interesting question.
Could Hong Kong destroy China?
Because I've seen some murmurs about that, that the Hong Kong example, if you will, you know, let's say China cracks down in Hong Kong and it becomes a massacre.
Could that cause China proper...
To maybe rise up against this leader?
I'm going to say no.
I don't know any way that Hong Kong can go, except that eventually China will have full control over it.
You know, I want that not to happen, and I want Hong Kong to have their autonomy, but I don't know how that could ever happen.
I mean, realistically, I just can't even...
I can't imagine it.
It's hard to work towards something I can't imagine.
Now, what happens to the poor people who live in Hong Kong?
Well, they should get out. I don't know what the rules are about getting out of Hong Kong and bringing your money with you, but if you're living and working in Hong Kong, you should get out.
Get out right away.
Because in the long run, China is going to run Hong Kong, and they're certainly going to be pretty harsh on the people who resisted, and they know who you are.
So I would get out of there if I were you.
Just get out.
China can have Hong Kong, but they can't have Hong Kong, if you know what I mean.
They can have the real estate.
They can be in charge of picking up the garbage.
But Hong Kong won't be Hong Kong when By the time they're done.
So, good luck with that.
So, New York Times did a hit piece on Kamala Harris, in which they threw her totally under the bus and talked about what a mess her campaign is, worst ever.
And if you see the New York Times dumping on Kamala Harris, you have to say to yourself, hey, the people on the left are not Somebody says, I'm disappointed as Scott for covering up for Omar.
Now before I block you, which I'm going to do in a moment, did you hear me covering up for Omar?
Did anybody hear anything even roughly like that?
No, you did not.
So the reason you're getting blocked is because you have accused me of something that didn't happen and it was public.
You all got to watch.
You watched that I did not cover up for Omar.
I simply said the accusations are not credible.
It's the same thing I would say for you, K.K. Kwajak.
If you were accused of something by somebody who is not a credible source, would I say put him in jail and kill him?
No, I would not. Even if I didn't like anything else you do in life, I would say those are not credible accusations.
Could be true, could be false.
But I don't have any credible information.
So you get the block for that.
But at least you stayed around to hear why.
All right. So if New York Times is dumping on Kamala Harris, does that mean that the, let's say, What should we call them?
Not that a deep state, but let's say the democratic elite.
Does that mean that they don't have a choice?
Can you determine who the leadership in the democratic world wants to be the candidate?
Let me ask you that.
So here's a question for the comments.
In the comments, tell me...
So he says, calling the Imam of Peace not credible is also not a credible statement.
So it's not credible to say that he's not credible.
Okay. That's actually a fair statement.
It is a fair statement to say that I'm not credible calling somebody else not credible.
That's a fair statement. But you have two non-credibles.
So it all ends up being the same.
So good luck with that.
All right. It looks like the Democrats have no idea, at least the leadership, the smart people, who they even want to be their candidate.
Because it seems to me that we would be seeing the beginnings of that.
Now, Buttigieg seems to be getting the best free pass from the press.
Wouldn't you agree? We're seeing these little digs against him about his list of black supporters, and we've seen the press go after him for his lack of African-American support, but it doesn't seem like they're trying to take him out of the race.
Whereas if you look at the way the New York Times just treated Kamala Harris, it looks like they're trying to take her out of the race.
Buttigieg is interesting.
Because, well, he's interesting on a lot of levels.
But, I don't know.
I don't think that the leadership of the Democrats have decided on him.
I think he's just interesting to them.
All right. Apparently researchers have developed a robot with a sense of touch.
So now you can touch your robot and your robot will know, oh, that you touched his shoulder or its arm or something.
Now it's just the beginnings of that.
They would have to get the cost down and make all that stuff more reliable, apparently.
But isn't it kind of obvious where we're heading when our robots have a sense of touch?
Let me ask you this.
How hard would it be to program a robot...
To act and think and feel as if it were, let's say, human or sentient.
Could you program your artificial intelligence and your robot, especially when it has a sense of touch, to tell you it's sentient and to act like it is?
The answer is yes.
That's how you know you are a simulation.
That's another story.
Let me ask this question for all of you.
Does anybody know of a source that puts in one place, and maybe with an analysis or links, all of the different ways you can avoid the standard social media companies?
Thinking primarily here of browsers such as the Brave browser and YouTube alternatives such as BitChute and Rockfin, etc., And I'm thinking of Google alternatives such as DuckDuckGo and StartPage, is it? Does anybody have them all in one place?
If you could, could you tweet that at me?
Because I'd like to give that some attention.
And if nobody's done it, it should be done.
There should be a page of all the alternatives for each of the major platforms with a link to it.
And maybe a plus and a minus, like what's the plus and the minus?
And then ideally, for all of the YouTube alternatives, there needs to be some kind of automatic feed, so that if you put something on YouTube, it automatically feeds to the alternative YouTubes.
Somebody says, are you serious?
About what? Spreadprivacy.com, somebody says.
Oh, Wikipedia does that per category.
All right, so it's, yeah, startpage.com is a browser that competes with Google.
Somebody says, all right.
Lots of new ones. Okay, I was just looking at your answers.
So anyway, tweet it at me, but I wanted to include the following things.
It should have at least a link, so you could go to that alternative site, but also a brief description of, you know, what's good or bad about it.
That would be ideal. Let me...
Oh, there's also a lot of work on...
This is a new topic...
on air conditioning redesign.
And apparently there's, you know, money to be made.
I know at one point who started Virgin, who's the billionaire, who started Virgin Records and Virgin Atlantic.
I'm blanking on it.
But Sir Richard Branson.
So Branson apparently is part of an effort to have like an X Prize for inventing a better air conditioning.
And I always think that there's a way to invent air conditioning without electronics.
Let me explain it to you.
And I will do it with...
How shall I explain this to you?
I will do it with this box of Kleenex and this bottle of water.
Now, if you had a hot house and a little chimney, so this would be the chimney, where would the air go?
Well, hot air rises, so the air that's inside your house would go up the chimney, and that would cause a continuous flow.
Well, suppose you extended this.
So that the air coming into your house goes under the ground for a while.
Or maybe it goes through a lake or something.
You know, it goes through pipes that are in a lake.
So that the air that goes into your house would be cooler.
And the air that's already in your house that's warmed up will go out here.
And because this air is being drawn out because of the warm air, it's called a...
There's a name for it.
Heat chimney? I think it's a heat chimney, this idea.
So since the air will be drawn out here just by the natural warmth, that's enough to suck in the new air that has been circulated under a lake or under the ground or something.
So it picks up some cooling as it goes.
And I thought, suppose you developed...
The entire village, or at least a cluster of homes, so that they're all sucking air through something that cools it up through some kind of a heat chimney.
And maybe all the homes use the same heat chimney, so you only need one of them.
You would. Somebody says that's already done with wells.
Somebody's calling that geothermal.
Well, it's geothermal...
Let me ask you this. It's geothermal if you do it...
To stay warm, is it also geothermal if you're doing it to stay cool?
I don't know. Somebody says it's pricey.
Yeah, it's pricey, and that's why you'd want to do several homes in a cluster.
So if you had one chimney that served multiple homes near it, all of their hot air could go up the same chimney, and they could be drawing from some underground stuff that you built all at the same time, so it's cost-effective.
Alright, so, ground is cool, but maybe not cool enough.
Well, run it through a lake.
Or run it deeper underground.
Or keep it underground for longer.
So the length of the tube that is traveling will determine how much of its warmth it loses on the path.
So just asking about that.
Is there some free way to do it?
I think the future will be interesting there.
Do you all know Ed Latimer?
On Twitter, I've recommended him a number of times.
So Ed Latimer is one of the most useful and important voices on Twitter at this point because he's full of useful and practical strategies.
Now, Ed is African-American, and he's got sort of a niche that he fills there, talking to people in certain circumstances, usually people who don't have natural advantages.
Maybe they were born poor, maybe they were born in the hood.
You don't have to be black or white, but his advice is sort of about how to pick yourself up and form a strategy and go succeed.
And I have this following idea.
I'm just going to put this out here.
I believe that any poor kid who understood the concept of a talent stack would succeed.
I know that's a big claim, right?
But it seems to me that if you could have for each kid, let's say from the time they enter school, you could have some kind of a permanent listing that's at least available for the kid and their parents of what skills they've already developed.
And then the app might suggest...
Extra skills that could be piled on top of it.
Because I think you would see that, you know, when you check your app to see what your talent stack is doing for yourself or for your kid, you'd say, oh, I've got three things that work well together, and I've got a fourth thing that doesn't work with these other three things, so that's discounted.
Because a talent stack isn't about number of talents, it's about the number of talents that work well together.
So if you have the ability to be a public speaker to almost any other skill, you become a good candidate to be the boss.
Because you can speak in public and maybe other people can't.
So the idea would be to form an app that any poor kid could have for free.
It's on the internet. You can access it.
It's on your phone if you have access to a phone.
And you could just say, oh, I have developed three skills.
My lifetime earnings is approximately this number.
Then somebody else would go and say, oh, I've developed five skills.
My lifetime predicted income is some higher number.
Here's why this is important.
I've said this before, but it's one of the most important facts about how humans work that you'll ever hear in your life.
And that is the things which you can measure are the things you manage, even if you don't want to.
It's just one of those hard and fast rules that you can't avoid.
If you can measure it, you're more likely to work on tweaking it.
If you can't measure it, you're not going to work on fixing it because you don't even know if the things you're doing are making any difference because you can't measure it.
If you say to a young kid, are you doing the right things to succeed, can you measure it?
Well, you can measure their grades in school, but I fear that that really disadvantages somebody from a poor neighborhood where they have a bad situation for school, not just socially, but the school itself.
So that's kind of limiting.
If the only thing you can measure About a kid's potential is their grades in school.
That's pretty demoralizing because not everybody gets good grades in school.
But suppose you had this app that could show your talent stack and you can see that you added a talent and that you're adding other ones and they're compatible.
And every time you add a talent, it changes your presumed lifetime income.
Right there, you can see, oh, I just added, I just took a course on public speaking.
Look what it did to my future income.
It just went up 20%.
Now imagine you had that for every kid and they could just add skills to it and watch their lifetime income go up.
What that would do is it would make everybody who wasn't adding talents to their talent stack know exactly why they were failing.
Think about it. Right now, everybody, not everybody, but people like to blame their circumstance.
People like to say, oh, look, I'm in this bad neighborhood, and I've got bad parents, and I've got a bad leg, and I'm ugly, I'm short, whatever.
Whatever damn thing you're worrying about.
People love to obsess about all the things that are holding them back.
But imagine you have the app.
And your best friend has five skills.
And you can see your best friend's earnings potential, and you know you could have those five skills too, because your friend just took the classes, you know, learned from somebody who knew it.
Nothing out of the ordinary.
They just did it, and you didn't.
And you could look at your app and say, oh, man, my friend's got five skills, I've got three, his lifetime in earning is, you know, $200,000 a year, mine is $60,000 a year, and all I have to do is add a couple more talents.
And I can have at least statistically the same chance.
I think that would completely reorient how people are feeling.
Now, I like to say that racism exists.
It matters.
But here's why Ed Latimer is so important to the world.
Because Ed is dealing on a rational sort of strategic level.
And I believe he's offering some courses and stuff.
So check out, it's at Ed Latimer, L-A-T-I-M-O-R-E. So check him out on Twitter and see what he's up to.
Because if he gets...
I like to boost his signal because it just looks so important.
The way he approaches it is just amazingly effective.
And because he's African American, he's got some credibility.
And I always talk about pacing and leading.
People will accept your ideas if they think you're like them.
And in the short run, you can be like them by talking like them, having the same body language, breathing like them, acting like them.
That's called pacing.
I can't pace a poor black kid.
I mean, I could try, but that's a lot to ask, right?
Because the poor black kid's gonna look at me and say, well, what do I have in common with this old white cartoonist guy?
And the answer is, not much.
And so I will have all this wonderful advice that can't get into that bubble.
I can't penetrate anybody else's bubble because I can't pace them enough.
I'm not enough like them that they can even hear the message.
But, Ed Latimer is.
Ed Latimer is enough like Really, anybody who's had a similar upbringing, you know, came from tough circumstances, crackheads everywhere, and, you know, put together a talent stack that allowed him to live the life that he's leading now, which apparently is pretty good. So, I like to boost this signal because the potential of that is unlimited, really.
You know, if you could bring strategy to poor kids, they wouldn't need money.
Alright, that's an exaggeration, of course.
Everybody needs money. But I will die on this hill.
I will die on this hill.
The thing that gets you out of your bad situation is strategy.
That's it. If you have a good strategy, your odds of success are really, really high.
If you have a bad strategy, your odds of success are zero.
And I continually see people with good strategies, Ed Latimer being a perfect example, who succeed.
And then you see people with bad strategies and they fail.
So... Get some strategy into those struggling places, be they black or be they white or any other color.
If you're poor, get a strategy.
Now, that's why I wrote my book, How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big, because it was putting it in one place in a friendly form.
That's the hard part, making it friendly.
So I put it in one book, and you can tell.
If you look at the reviews for that, you can see it's changing people's lives all over the place.
Alright. Let me see if I have anything else to talk about here.
No, I do not.
That is all for today.
Alright. So those are my thoughts of the day.
Go out and have an amazing weekend.
▲
Export Selection