All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 6, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:12
Episode 779 Scott Adams: Coming in HOT, With Coffee
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in here.
It's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Sure, it's no Golden Globes, and I'm no Ricky Gervais, but it's something.
What else are you going to do?
Watch the news? Stare at the wall?
No, you're here.
Because you want the simultaneous sip and all the goodness that comes with it.
And there's a lot of goodness. My goodness, there's a lot of goodness.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
You know what I like? I like my coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better, the simultaneous sip.
Go.
Oh.
The goodness is permeating my body.
Bye.
Thank you.
Sue, I know what you want to talk about.
You all want to talk about the Golden Globes and Ricky Gervais.
For those two people who don't know the news, Ricky Gervais was the host of the Golden Globes, which he said would be the last time he'd do it.
And then he took advantage of the fact that it was the last time he would do it to get pretty brutal.
With the Hollywood crowd.
Now, I gotta say, I don't think his jokes were clever, but they were super mean.
And the funny part was just that he was saying it to their faces, and it made them sit there with a camera on them, squirming.
So we don't need to repeat any of the jokes because, frankly, the jokes were not that strong.
But the way he did it was actually very entertaining because it was more about making them uncomfortable with the camera on them.
And, man, he did that.
He delivered that.
If you want to see celebrities looking uncomfortable, watch that video.
So, I could not like Ricky Gervais any more than I do, meaning he's just one of my favorite people.
So what else happened? The funny thing was that Ricky Gervais called out the actors for being the least informed and most ridiculous citizens who have barely gone to school.
And, you know, it's exactly what the public thinks.
Now, of course, the funny part about it is that now he'll be called a right-wing nut because he was making fun of left-wing people.
But trust me, He doesn't go easy on the right either, so he's pretty brutal to both sides, which is what makes him wonderful.
Now, I've been kidding for the last several months, especially since my book Loser Think came out, that artists Are the least capable of understanding their world because they live in an art world where everything's meaningful and everything follows a story arc.
So they live in this artificial world of imaginary stuff And they don't really have, in most cases, training as scientists or economists or lawyers or people who learn to look at things objectively.
So the funny thing is that it was a collection all in one room of the least capable people for understanding science.
Any issue, really.
Literally, all the least capable people were put in one room.
And then they turn the camera on and they say, okay, least capable people, give us some opinions in public.
And I don't know about you, but when I listen to their opinions, it's kind of funny.
Is it just me? And it doesn't even matter who it is or what their opinion is.
When it comes from the people who are just artists, that's the only lens they have onto life, it looks just kind of funny because they're so poorly informed, haven't thought anything through, don't see long-term ramifications.
Anyway, just funny.
Speaking of funny celebrities, Michael Moore apparently wrote a He wrote a letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran.
Thank God. Were you a little bit worried that World War III was going to break out?
Well, you don't have to worry anymore, because it turns out that Michael Moore has surrendered for you.
So Michael Moore told Iran that we surrender.
No, he didn't say that.
He said, quote, I am asking you to leave this up to me.
What? This is his letter to the Supreme Leader.
Hey, Supreme Leader, leave it up to me.
I'm Michael Moore.
I got this. Sure, you have the Revolutionary Guard, you've got proxies, you've got Hezbollah, but you don't have Michael Moore.
Leave it up to me.
I'll take care of this.
Now, what he means is, I'm assuming he's not talking about assassination.
I think that he means that he wants to help get Trump not elected.
And he says, give me all of ten months and I and millions of Americans will remove Trump from the White House.
So, am I wrong that he took sides with Iran?
Kind of. I mean, it's not as clean as that, but...
One of the things that used to always be true is that when the United States got any kind of a defensive or war-like footing, most people would join in, and at least for the period of the highest danger, people would sort of be on the same side of America.
But Michael Moore has decided that he could run things a little bit better here, so he's going to take charge of the country.
And just leave it up to him, he says.
He'll organize all the Democrats and they'll vote Trump out.
Problem solved. So, good job there, Michael Moore, saving the world from World War III. Okay.
One of the biggest problems that the anti-Trumpers have had since he got elected, really since he got sworn in, is the lack of anything that looked like what they thought was going to happen.
In other words, Trump didn't do all of the horrible things that they expected to happen.
But they're sure they're right.
But how can they still be right about everything they predicted about Trump when none of the present...
Information seems to support it.
And the answer is, they have decided that his real problem is not what he's already done.
The real problem is imaginary future stuff.
Because at the moment, if you just look at today, it appears that, you know, Trump took a major terrorist off the field.
But the real problem is what's going to happen next.
So, they would like to remove the President for imaginary future problems.
Now, when I say imaginary, I don't mean that I know what the future will look like, and they don't.
I'm saying that neither of us know what the future will be.
I don't know what it's going to look like.
You don't know what it's going to look like.
I don't know if it's going to be better.
I don't know if it's going to be worse.
But I do know that the future is imaginary.
Meaning that it hasn't happened, and it only exists as a sensation in our minds.
And half of the country has decided that the imaginary future problems are now so great that this president needs to be voted out or impeached.
So, Pelosi...
Siding with Iran, sort of, has decided to, I don't know, do some damn stupid thing legislatively, or at least a declaration, by declaring the attack provocative and disproportionate.
So it's a resolution. I'm sorry, it's not legislation.
It's just a resolution.
Okay. And it's one that, as Joel Pollack said in Breitbart, it invites international prosecution of the president for war crimes.
Because the whole provocative and disproportionate, it's the disproportionate part that is the war crime problem...
I would say that Nancy Pelosi has not taken the interest of the country in mind.
Because here's the thing, I believe she's trying to keep the president from starting a full war.
What? How can you prevent somebody from starting a full war when their entire thing is to prevent a full war?
It's like she's trying to, let's see, Prevent ice from freezing?
No, that doesn't work. I'm trying to think of a good analogy to explain that.
But Pelosi...
I lost my train of thought there.
But she's not helping.
Definitely not helping.
Here's something that CNN said today on their website.
It's an opinion piece.
And it's one of their opinion people who does a daily anti-Trump article.
And today's daily anti-Trump article is Collinson, I think is his name.
The Trump administration is already in danger of losing control of the swift chain reaction and political storm unleashed by its killing of Iran's top general.
Isn't that an imaginary future problem?
That we're in danger of losing control of the Swiss chain reaction.
Aren't we always in danger of losing control?
Does that ever go away?
Is there ever a time where you're not in danger of losing control?
I don't think so.
I think we're always in danger of that.
So, imaginary future problems are quite bad.
But speaking of imaginary future problems, for the people who think that Soleimani should not have been killed, I would love to hear them describe what they think the future would turn into under their preferred plan.
So let's say that their preferred plan is that we didn't kill him and we don't do anything militarily.
We just sort of try to stay uninvolved.
What would that look like?
Well, number one, Iran would develop a nuclear weapon.
Now, apparently there's some disagreement about whether they were abiding by the Iran nuclear agreement.
According to Israel, they were not because Israel found a trove of documents in Iran that showed that their development was ongoing.
So we have documented proof that they cheated.
Why would we expect them not to keep cheating?
Because I'm pretty sure that the inspectors never had access to everything.
They had access to what they knew about, but they didn't have access to everything, of course.
So, if you were against the President's action, what do you think the world would look like without it?
And also, what do you think it looks like with it?
Because if you can't sort of game that through, why do you even have an opinion?
Because we're talking about the future, the imaginary future.
Tell me what the imaginary future looks like under both scenarios.
One where we act tough on Iran, and one where we don't.
Because it seems to me that Iran would continue doing what they're doing, kick the US out, and Israel would eventually have to take them out.
Because Israel doesn't seem to want to live with a nuclear Iran.
So that would happen.
Do we believe that the Iranian Revolution would be limited geographically?
Because all the evidence suggests that they're trying to spread the revolution as far as they can.
So I'd just like to hear what somebody says it would look like if we didn't do that.
All right. Let's talk about the crowd sizes.
So you've seen all the pictures of all the people who went to mourn Soleimani.
And it was miles and miles of people, I think millions.
So it was an enormous outpouring of outrage.
But here's the thing.
There are two things you need to know.
Number one, how many people didn't go?
How many people didn't go in the streets?
Because I'm sure however many went, there may have been a lot of people who didn't.
It's sort of a hidden Trump voter problem.
If you were one of the people who opposed the regime, would you necessarily go out in public?
Probably not. I mean, they have had some protests, but they seem to be on other topics.
Fake to the missile launches.
I don't know what that means. Somebody's saying something about faking missile launches.
So, we can't really tell anything from the crowd side because you don't know the context.
You don't know how many people did not march, and what did those people think?
Because I don't think anybody's saying that 100% of Iranians wanted this guy dead.
Nobody made that claim.
Because there's not 100% of Iranians who want any one thing.
They're all over the map just like everybody else.
And as was pointed out to me just before I got on Periscope, Somebody was messaging me and pointed out that there's a, let's say, a social element to this.
In other words, having gigantic outside demonstrations with mourning and yelling and stuff is a cultural thing.
So if you're looking at how many people showed up in Iran to shake their hands and yell, death to America, you can't really compare that to some other country where it's not normal to get out there and shake your hands at the sky and say, death to America.
So there's something about the culture that gets people in the streets for lots of stuff.
They did it for Obama, apparently.
They did it for this. This was bigger than most, but you would expect that.
So we don't know what to make of that.
I've got a question for you.
Is there any reason that the Palestinians couldn't be resettled in Iraq?
Now, I don't mean carving out their own little territory, but rather just, if Iran wanted to help the Palestinians, and it didn't look like there was any practical way that they would get back to Israel and reclaim their If you believe that couldn't happen, and of course it can't, what would be the next best thing?
Because if the Iranians really want to help the Palestinians, and that seems to be one of the big stumbling blocks, wouldn't it help them to allow them to move to Iraq?
And again, distributed, you know, just basic immigration.
They would end up wherever they ended up.
So you wouldn't have to carve out territory.
But suppose we made some kind of a grand Middle East deal to avoid war, in which part of the resolution was the Palestinians don't have to move.
They can stay where they are, and conditions might not improve there.
But suppose you gave them an offer, and you also funded their move.
I don't know what it would cost in the Middle East.
Let's say some group of countries got together and said, you know, just to lower the temperature over there.
If anybody's in the Palestinian area, they want to move to Iraq, this would be a good time to do it.
We'll give you a little money for the move.
And then you'll just be in a place that's growing, because the Palestinian territory may never grow.
Somebody says, like an Indian reservation?
No. Nothing like an Indian reservation.
Because I said specifically, they wouldn't be moving to a specific area where they would all be in Iraq.
I'm just saying they could immigrate.
They would just have the right to immigrate.
That's all. Now, obviously...
Got a call from Canada.
Hello? Thank you for choosing Master...
Alright, the candidate calling.
It doesn't belong to Israel, Israel shouldn't even exist, says somebody.
Well, that's maybe the dumbest comment anybody ever said.
I hate to call you out there in public, but...
So somebody said, the land doesn't belong to Israel, and Israel shouldn't even be there.
That's like the dumbest comment.
You could be right. You could be wrong.
Completely irrelevant. Because Israel is there, and they're not going anywhere.
It doesn't matter if they should be there.
What the hell the difference does that make?
Your opinion of where people should be has no bearing on reality whatsoever.
Here's what I think. I think you should be in Canada.
Yeah, that's what I think.
I don't approve of you being where you are.
You should be in Canada. Why would you care about my opinion about where you should be?
Why would anybody care about anybody's opinion about where they should be?
They shouldn't. So it would be great if you could go back in time, be a time traveler, maybe you could change things.
That would be terrific.
And when a time machine is developed, then get back to me once you've fixed everything, okay?
But they're there now.
They exist now. They're not going anywhere.
It's not going to change.
You have to deal with the reality as it is, not the imaginary reality.
There's still a question, the Democrats are questioning, how imminent the attack was from Soleimani and Iran.
Totally irrelevant question.
Wouldn't you agree? Completely irrelevant how imminent it was.
If we know that he's created a track record of continuous badness, what would make us think it would stop?
There's no evidence that he was going to stop because he'd been doing it for a long time.
Of course he wasn't going to stop.
Why do we need to know how imminent it was?
I mean, it would be nice, it would be cool to know, but it doesn't make any difference.
The imminence of it is completely irrelevant.
Next week, a month from now, six months from now.
Wouldn't you kill a terrorist if you thought that next year he was going to kill somebody?
If he knew that he was planning it?
Of course you would. It doesn't matter how fricking imminent it is, you'd kill him if you knew the plan was there, if you could.
Let's talk about Jeffrey Epstein.
Did you all see the 60 Minutes report or at least see the pictures on it?
The 60 Minutes report proves it was suicide.
Is that your take from it?
The 60 Minutes report, this is just my interpretation of it, proved beyond any doubt in my mind that it was suicide.
Here's how. How many times have you heard the story from the coroner who was not assigned to it, but he was the expert coroner who observed, how many times have you heard him say that the only way those broken neck muscles could have happened is by murder, because that never happens with hanging yourself?
How many times have you heard that?
Like a million times, right?
And it's the best evidence.
Of all the evidence, that would be the strongest evidence.
A credible coroner who says, no, this kind of injury only happens for murder.
That's very credible, right?
Except finally, and I've been wondering where this was, finally 60 Minutes goes to the actual coroner who was in charge and says, apparently, says to them...
Oh, I'm sorry, forensics person?
Would that be the right name for what they were doing?
And says to the person who actually performed the autopsy and says to that person, how often, if ever, do you get these broken bones for a suicide?
And the guy who actually is expert enough to do the autopsy in such a high-level case said, oh yeah, that happens.
What? So we have two completely different expert opinions.
One says, oh yeah, those bones could break from suicide.
And the other says, can't happen.
One of them is being paid to come up with a certain...
Let's just say he's biased by who his client is, which is Epstein's brother.
So one of them is biased, but he's also a very qualified expert.
One of them probably is not biased in the sense that, I mean, he was just doing his job, right?
He wasn't working for anybody except the public, and he would have no reason to have the wrong answer, unless you imagine he got bribed or he was in on it or something.
So that was the main thing I wanted to hear.
I wanted to hear some other expert, a forensics pathologist, tell me that the other coroner is wrong, that you can break your neck bone by suicide.
But that's not the proof that it was suicide.
Here's the proof that it was suicide, and you're going to be mad at yourself if he didn't think of this.
Are you ready? So I'm going to tell you why the 60 Minutes report proved it was suicide.
No blood on the sheets, right?
And so he says, are you kidding?
No, I'm not. And when I tell you the proof, you're going to be pissed off that you didn't think about it yourself.
Here it goes. There were multiple nooses So there was more than one noose.
And there was also a piece of fabric that had torn that was up in the top of the window.
So I guess the windows had some kind of wire or bar on them.
And at the very top, higher than the top of the bunk bed, there was a piece of fabric that had been tied there for some purpose, presumably to hang himself.
But, you know, it was cut, so it was just a little piece left.
Now, let me ask you this.
You just figured out what's happening, right?
Let me pull it all together.
If he were murdered, would the murderer bring multiple nooses to leave in the cell?
If the murderer wanted to look like a suicide, would they bring more than one noose?
Not in a billion years.
Somebody says yes. No, they wouldn't bring multiple nooses and leave them there, because multiple nooses says that...
Just nobody would do that.
It just would be too smart for somebody to do.
If you wanted to make it look like a suicide, you'd want to get in and out as quickly as you can.
One noose. If you were trying to kill yourself...
Might you have a few different nooses that you had fashioned before you decided which one to use?
And the answer is very much so.
You definitely would.
So, when you see one of the nooses and it has no blood on it, but yet there's blood around his neck, what does that tell you?
It tells you that he didn't use that noose, that he used something else.
So there was also apparently an electrical device for his sleep apnea.
They had a power cord. If I had to guess, that seems more likely.
But let me tell you a little jail information that you didn't know.
You saw the noose, I guess there were a few of them, and they were cloth.
And yet you saw what looked like a smaller ligature on his neck.
So it didn't look like cloth could have created that, you know, the type of injury he had.
It just didn't look like a cloth injury.
Here's what you don't know.
When you hang yourself with cloth, In a jail, you wet it.
So you wet the cloth to make it small and stringier.
So if you want to hang yourself in jail, I've been told, you don't do it with a dry noose, you do it with a wet one so you can really get it small.
If he'd hung himself with a wet cloth noose, it would have been tighter and it would have left a mark closer to what you saw.
Now, we don't know if we saw the actual noose that they think was the one that killed them.
Maybe that's in evidence somewhere.
But the point is, it would have dried.
So they would have seen, by the time they got there, the noose would have been dry, and it would look like it was a bigger cloth thing, and you would have said, how could that create that?
But if it had been wet and twisted or something, I don't know exactly how they do it.
And then there was also, remember, the piece of cloth from the high window.
If you were going to murder somebody, would you come into the cell, murder him, and then put a little piece of cloth tied to the top of a window?
I don't think you would.
Why would you do that? That would be sort of a waste of time.
You might Put him in a noose and hang him from something, if you could.
But you wouldn't put a little piece of cloth up there, would you?
So here's my guess of how he killed himself.
And we can find out this is not true.
I have always said that he jumped off the top bunk.
Because every time you hear a story of how he killed himself, they act like he tied it to the bottom of the bed and then leaned forward on his knees or something.
And I don't know, that feels like not the best way to kill yourself, but it also wouldn't break your bone.
But where he had the thing tied was at a high window that was higher than the top of the bunk.
If I were going to kill myself, I would get on the top of the bunk, tie it to a little higher place, and I would jump off the bunk with my knees up so that it caught me on the way down.
Now, he might have eventually broken the thing, or he might have tried twice.
It's also possible he tried more than once.
So we'll see. Anyway, I've concluded that it was suicide, and the multiple nooses, pretty much, that's all you need to know, I think.
And the fact that that bone can be broken by suicide.
There's 60 Minutes also covered a way more important story.
One of the most important stories in the country, at least as important as Iran.
And that is that mushrooms, magic mushrooms, you know, the psilocybin, the psychedelic mushrooms, 60 Minutes is all in.
Basically, they didn't have a criticism whatsoever, saying that psilocybin was something that could cure addiction.
And they had stories of people who took one dose, one time, of psilocybin, And stopped smoking.
Somebody quit drinking.
And I'm talking immediately. As soon as they were done with the trip, that was it.
They were done with their addiction and other addictions, opioids and other things.
Now, what's the biggest problem in society right now?
The biggest problem in society right now, because most things are going well, and I think Iran will be limited in In scope as well.
The biggest problem in the whole country is addiction, I would say.
Addiction and anxiety, those two things.
Psilocybin fixes both of them for about, I don't know, two-thirds of people or something.
It's got a really high success rate.
Now, I knew about this a long time ago, that one of the people who you see in the show, I talked to him privately a long time ago, And so I'd been up to date on this maybe five years ago or whatever it was.
But it's the most important thing in the country.
And the fact that CBS has sort of blessed it.
And apparently it was Nixon who made all this stuff illegal, you know, when he cracked down on drugs.
And a lot of it persists as being illegal.
Here's the thing. This is such a big issue.
The addiction and anxiety and all that.
And there is a cure.
And the only thing that's keeping this country from curing its biggest problems is the government.
That's not an exaggeration.
And the government is preventing it without even an argument.
There's not even a debate.
There's no two sides to it.
The science is unambiguously, oh, this stuff helps, not just helps.
We're not talking about aspirin helps.
We're talking about rewiring your brain instantly.
I mean, over the course of a few hours instantly.
And the only thing that's keeping something like a third of the people in this country from getting their biggest problem in their life cured is that the government is incompetent on this topic, other topics as well.
And I will go so far as to say that if, let's say, Pete Buttigieg, we'll just use him as an example, if Pete Buttigieg came out and said, one of my main things is I'm going to be looking to legalize psilocybin to battle addiction and some mental health things.
That's such a big issue that if Pete Buttigieg said that, I'd have a tough time not supporting him for president.
I really would. Because frankly, I think that Trump has fixed enough stuff.
Economy looks great.
We'll probably finish up our trade war negotiations, which everybody thinks was worth doing at this point.
I got a feeling that Trump would never do this.
I can't imagine anti-drug Trump being pro-psilocybin.
Now, if I had time to talk to him about it or somebody who knew and sat him down and went through the whole thing, maybe.
I mean, he's intellectually flexible.
He used to be a Democrat. Now he's a Republican.
So I think he could be convinced.
But I don't think anybody's doing it.
And I don't think it's going to happen.
So, If somebody on the Democrat side said they were going to champion that cause and I thought they could actually succeed at it, you'd have to look at them seriously as a president.
Because that's bigger than any other issue.
It's bigger than any other issue that Trump hasn't already solved.
You don't have to re-solve the same things you've already solved.
And I'm always a big proponent of you don't need the same president forever.
Because as the problems change, you need a different employee for different kinds of problems.
I think Trump was kind of perfect for a certain set of problems, such as negotiating with China, maybe dealing with North Korea.
I think he's going to succeed in Iran, but it's too early to say.
But maybe the next set of problems is different, and maybe you need somebody else for that.
Just putting that out there.
It was fascinating to listen to the people who had had these mushroom experiences describe them, because you can't really describe them.
I've told you before that once in my 20s, early 20s, I had one experience with psychedelic mushrooms.
And as I've often said, it was the best day of my life.
I hate to say that, you know, but it was.
And I fundamentally changed who I was, who I am, I guess, forever.
Changed the way I see the world, changed the way I process everything, changed the way I filter everything, and all for the good.
There was not a single, I can't even come up with anything that would look like a downside.
It was the most impactful, useful, completely good thing I've ever done.
Now, I don't recommend it because if you take a bad batch or there's something different about you and you don't have medical supervision, it's a very bad idea to throw some, you know, especially if it's a piece of mushroom.
How do you control the dose?
The way I did it was I had some that was from exactly the same bunch that some other people had taken the night before.
So at least I had the benefit of knowing that they took this much the night before from the same bag.
If I take this much, I'll be fine because they were all fine.
And that's what happened. Now, one of the things that they describe is losing your ego.
And they all sort of use that language.
They say, under the psychedelic experience, your ego shatters.
Now, I've called it ego death.
And I don't know that there's any way to explain that to someone who hasn't experienced it as I have.
But I've often said that the secret to success is ego death.
And probably mushrooms are not the, you know, psychedelics are not the only way to accomplish that.
I always recommend that you put yourself in embarrassing situations, and maybe even some minor dangerous ones, because if you can learn to think past protecting yourself, that's at least a little bit similar to releasing your ego.
But I would put it this way.
You notice how we all see the world through a filter of ourselves?
When we're navigating through the world, everything starts with us, And then we interpret the world as how it relates to us because we're important and everything revolves around us.
When you take mushrooms, you lose that.
So you lose the fact that the preferred point of view of reality is you.
Rather, you just see the stuff.
It's just the stuff without you being important.
Now, there's no way to explain what that feels like, but I can tell you it changes everybody forever.
And it allows them to get rid of anxiety, allows them to quit addictions, allows them to just sort of enjoy the world.
Now, if I had to guess why this helps you with anxiety and why it helps you with addiction, is that the biggest problem in people's life is their ego.
Your problem is not the stuff around you, it's how you process it.
Unless you have a physical health problem or desperate poverty.
There are situations that are real.
But beyond that, if you just have a normal life and a job and a life, and you still have anxiety, or you need to do drugs, it's because there's something that is important to you that you need to feed.
And the thing that's important to you is you, your ego.
Once you lose that as important, you can just enjoy being.
Because it's not you you're trying to protect, you're just part of the whole.
And once you can enjoy being part of the whole, and you can let your ego die, your anxiety goes away.
So too, apparently, does your need for drugs and alcohol and cigarettes.
Because you've already satisfied those needs by getting rid of your ego, There's nothing left to protect.
There's nothing to feed.
There's nothing to drug.
There's nothing to change.
It just isn't there.
So somebody says there's no magic cure bullshit.
Well, it's you against science.
So that's a brave stand you're taking against every single test, every single study.
I hope some of you saw my Dr.
Drew interview. If not, I tweeted it last night.
So you can see it in his feed, Dr.
Drew, or mine. So we had a long conversation.
I think you'll like it.
Did I laugh a lot?
Yeah, it's sort of non-stop humorous when you're hallucinating.
Somebody says, LOL, now do the risks.
Okay. So the risks, based on 60 minutes, is that some people had what they call a bad trip.
But apparently nobody had anything that lasted.
So as far as we know, the risks were zero.
Based on all science, all experience, anecdotal, scientific, as far as anybody can tell, the risks are zero.
And I don't know if anything else is like that.
Now, you have to assume that there must be somebody in the world who would be worse off.
Because that would be true of aspirin.
It would be true of eating peanuts.
It would be true of a lot of things.
So there's always somebody who's allergic to something, has a bad reaction to something.
So if I told you that there's nobody in the world who could ever have a negative, permanent experience with mushrooms, I'd be lying.
Because 7 billion people in the world, there must be at least one of them, Who's wired in a way that one trip might break their brain.
All I know is that I've never heard of it.
In my entire life, I've never heard of it happening once with mushrooms.
Other things may be different.
All right. Somebody said I've had a terrible trip on mushrooms.
Yeah. So there are reports of people who had bad trips on mushrooms.
So that's the thing.
But there's no lasting damage.
It's just a few hours you wish you hadn't done.
It's not addictive. I did it once, and like I said, it was the best experience of my life, by far.
It's not even close to a normal experience, and I've had no real impulse to do it again.
You know, I do have some interest in DMT and some other things like that, but I'd only do that under the right supervision in the right situation.
I had one out of many good.
Oh, there's somebody here who has done it many times and grows them at home.
Somebody said, how do you know that everyone is different?
How do I know what? I said everyone's different.
I said what you said. Twice is better than once?
I don't know. I don't know if you need to do it more than once to get the benefits, because I think the people who got the benefits, somebody says, don't do DMT. Well, you know, I don't recommend anything to anybody.
So if you're not doing it with medical supervision, don't do it.
Did you have a shaman present?
Not when I did it, no.
It was just recreational.
I batted 70-50 on shrooms.
I don't know what that means.
My cousin went full schizophrenic.
It can trigger latent mental illness.
Well, you know, here's the thing.
I hear lots of stories of people who took a drug, and it could be a different drug.
I've heard it from Marijuana to meth to hallucinogens.
And you've even heard it with inoculations, vaccinations.
So there are lots of stories of people who were perfectly normal until they had marijuana, a vaccination, LSD, or meth, or whatever.
So there's plenty of stories of that.
But because there are plenty of people who are going from sane to Having an episode.
At the same time, there are plenty of people who are trying drugs for the first time or just doing drugs again.
You should have lots of false negatives.
In other words, in the normal course of just people doing what they're doing, there should be lots of coincidental examples where somebody took a drug and then soon after they had a mental problem.
Now, some of it may be cause.
And then there may be others that are just coincidence.
So I don't know how much is caused and how much is coincidence and all that stuff.
Yeah, I'm not sure I totally buy the idea that people did not already have mental illness that would not have come out on its own.
Why do we have to do anything?
Can't we just learn to problem solve?
Nope. Apparently not.
Meditation and prayer seem much healthier.
Well, depending on your problem, you can't meditate and pray away your addiction in one day, but you can take psilocybin, change your life, make you happier and smarter, and get rid of an addiction in one day.
So if you could do that with pregues, I would definitely recommend the pregues, but you can't.
So much drug use is self-medication.
Yeah. All right.
Nothing else for me today.
▲
Export Selection