Episode 793 Scott Adams: Impeachment Super Bowl, TDS Update, NYT's Endorsement, Sleep Tricks
Jason Crow says the President is guilty of bribery
NYT Presidential endorsements
TDS victims, condition update
Sleep tips begin at 33:45
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
You need a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
The simultaneous sip.
Go. Delightful.
Somebody in the comments is saying, white man talk with Scott Adams.
You know what's interesting? I have...
More African-American followers from my Periscope than you might imagine.
For some reason, I seem to speak to that community, which is good.
I'm glad I'm doing that.
Let's talk about some of the things.
Senate Majority, some of the things in the news.
Mitch McConnell is reportedly close to finalizing a rule for impeachment in the Senate.
That after some evidence is presented, there would be some sort of a safety valve where they can vote to wrap things up quickly.
You kind of see where things are going, don't you?
I think you do.
I think where we're heading is that the Senate is setting up a situation where they might hear perhaps Dershowitz's argument about the constitutionality.
And then say, well, okay, that's all we need to know.
If it's not an impeachable offense, we don't need to know the details.
We don't even need to know if he did it, didn't do it, lied about it.
It doesn't matter. If it's not impeachable, that's the end of the story.
And I think that's where it's going to go.
I think Dershowitz is going to do his thing.
He's going to say, Doesn't matter if the facts are true or false.
If everything that's alleged is true, it still doesn't matter.
And then I think the Senate's going to vote.
So that's what I think is going to happen.
But I saw an interview with one of the impeachment managers for the Democrats, Representative Jason Crow.
And you're probably sick of me Talking about how good Alan Dershowitz is, no matter what the topic is.
Whenever he's on one of the news programs, doesn't matter what, doesn't matter which topic, I've been telling you this for three years, that as soon as you hear him talk, you feel like the conversation is over.
Because he just puts the nail in the conversation, and you say, well, I could argue with that, but no, I can't argue with that.
It's actually, he just nailed it down.
That's all you need to know.
So he's like the Godzilla of constitutional lawyers, and he's going to be up against this other team of the Democrats, including Representative Jason Crow.
And he was on one of the news shows, I think, yesterday, and he mentioned how the president was guilty of bribery.
And the interviewer says, why do you think it is that bribery isn't one of the allegations?
So this guy, who's one of their best lawyer defenders, is talking about the president and bribery, and that he's asked, why do you think that's not one of the charges?
And he ended up giving this absurdly incompetent answer about, well, you've got to look at the big picture and consider all the context of the things and the impeachment, and it's important to the world, and he couldn't answer the question.
of why he seemed to be unaware of what the actual impeachment charges even were.
So that part was hilarious.
But then he goes on, as he's digging his hole to put himself in, and it gets even funnier.
He goes on to say that if the president is not impeached on these charges which people acknowledge are not crimes, I mean they're not crafted as criminal charges, If he's not impeached for this, no president could ever be held accountable.
And I thought to myself, wait a minute.
If it's not a crime, and it's not criminal-like, which I think is what Dershowitz will argue, that the founders were okay if it wasn't technically a crime, as long as it was in the same basket, as long as you could look at it and say, well, maybe it's not technically a crime, but it ought to be a crime.
It's crime-like.
Then that would still be impeachable.
But what if it's just the president doing his job?
Wouldn't we want to live in a world where if the president doesn't commit a crime, and he doesn't commit, according to the people who judge these things, and he doesn't also commit something that's crime-like, do you want him to be held accountable for just doing the job in a different way than you would?
So, I would say that Representative Jason Crow does not have a strong game, at least if we judge it just by this one interview.
It was sort of a D minus in public interviews.
One of the worst you'll ever see.
And he's up against Dershowitz.
I mean, how could this even go any other way?
You could ignore all the other lawyers involved, I think, and just say, all right, that matchup tells you a lot.
All right, the New York Times... Apparently, the New York Times endorsement for president means a lot, some say, probably does.
And instead of endorsing one person, they've decided on a, let's say a balanced path, to be kind, a balanced path, where they endorsed two people, Elizabeth Warren and Klobuchar.
And the reason is they wanted to endorse one who's sort of progressive and one who's sort of moderate, and those are the two they thought were the best of their respective bunches.
As Ian Bremmer asked in his tweet, where he pointed out, it sort of makes the whole concept of endorsement not make any sense.
If you're endorsing people who are basically opposites, what does it mean?
Can you endorse people who have literally opposite views?
One wants something very progressive and the other wants something moderate.
They're not quite opposite, but they're really different.
But here's the interesting part.
In the New York Times endorsement, they called down Bernie for being too old and maybe not healthy enough.
So they mentioned his heart attack and his age is 79.
And they're Suggesting he's just not physically a good risk.
I think that's pretty bold.
And it suggests that Biden is too timid to get their endorsement.
So I think the New York Times is trying to warn people away from the oldest of the candidates.
Which is sort of an adult in the room sort of thing to do.
I kind of like it.
In the sense that, you know, it's not that I like the specific recommendations, but I do like the fact that they're trying to be the adults in the room.
Here's what the adult in the room says.
I don't really care how much you like Biden.
He's too old.
I don't really care how much you like Bernie.
He's too old.
That's sort of the...
That's the adult in the room.
And I feel as though the people who were...
Grasping to Biden and Bernie are sort of taking maybe a childlike view.
Because a child would say, well, let's just ignore the most important fact, which is they're both just too old.
There's no way around it.
They're just way too old.
And you could argue that Trump and Elizabeth Warren are pushing that zone.
But that would be an argument about pushing the boundary.
As opposed to Biden and Bernie, who I think you could just unambiguously say they're too old.
If they were on my team and I loved them both for president, I'd still say the same thing.
It has nothing to do with their policies or personalities or anything else.
There is a biological factor If you're going to be the adult in the room, thank you, New York Times, for being the adult in the room, you've just got to call that out.
You can't ignore the biggest factor.
We are biological creatures.
And certainly Bloomberg's got that issue as well.
By way of full disclosure, I do have a bet on Predict It, the betting site, that the Democratic nominee will be a woman.
So I placed that bet a few months ago, I guess.
And it wasn't just that it would necessarily be Harris back when I was thinking that she would be the top of the ticket, incorrectly.
But, anyway.
I've got that bet out there, so I'll just let that hang.
There's nothing else to say about it.
Let me give you a Trump derangement syndrome update.
I always think it's fascinating to be in one movie and then sort of look over and see what the other people are thinking.
So let me give you just a flavor of some of the things coming from the anti-Trump world.
This one from James Carville.
You know him. Famous advisor to Bill Clinton and a very vocal Democrat and pundit.
And he said this, quote, I guess yesterday, I think Trump and Trumpism is the greatest threat this country has faced since the fall of communism.
What? What?
The greatest threat this country has faced since the fall of communism.
Now, The first thing you need to know is that this is a weird sentence.
Because what does he mean since the fall of communism?
Because I thought we were happy about the fall of communism.
So if this is the biggest threat since that thing we were happy about, what does that even mean?
But I'll be generous in my interpretation of this sentence.
And say that he was using the fall of communism just as a time period, not as a comparison to what's happening.
Under that structure, he's just saying that Trump and Trumpism is the greatest threat this country has faced since several decades.
Really? I think the LGBTQ community would like to talk to him about AIDS. That was a pretty big problem.
How about Our wars and our potential nuclear threats from North Korea?
How about terrorism?
I don't know. I feel like we've had some bigger threats since we've had bigger threats than mean old, terrible Trump who gave us the biggest economy, defeated ISIS. Do I need to go on?
You all know the list of accomplishments.
But who is still saying stuff like that?
Like it's the biggest problem to our entire country?
On what level, exactly?
Let's say that...
I saw somebody mention global warming in the comments.
Let's say that that's about...
Let's say one of the elements of this comment is that Trump is bad for the environment because of climate change.
He's not taking the lead on that.
But here's the thing.
What difference would it make?
It's not the United States who's causing climate change.
It's China. It's India.
We've actually reduced our CO2. So what exactly is this greatest threat to the country?
And what exactly is Trumpism?
So it just sounds a little crazy from our perspective.
Then you remember Omarosa?
So remember that James Carville's worry about Trump is not what he's already done.
So he's been president for three years, and Carville doesn't say, look what he did, he broke everything.
Instead he says it's the biggest threat, meaning the future.
So I guess what he's done so far wasn't so bad, but in the future...
In the future which you can't measure.
Oh, what a coincidence.
The president is doing well on things you can measure.
It turns out he's doing very, very poorly.
He's the biggest risk in the world for the imaginary future, which, coincidentally, we can't really measure.
So, here's another comment from Trump's derangement syndrome world.
From Omarosa.
You remember Omarosa? She was a controversial employee for Trump and quit, and she was controversial on his reality show, and she quit that, or didn't make it to the top, I guess.
And she said recently, President Trump, quote, doesn't grasp that his ignorance is destroying our country.
What? Which part of the country is getting destroyed?
Did I miss something?
Is there some part of our country getting destroyed that the news isn't reporting about?
Where exactly is the country getting destroyed?
And how exactly is his ignorance doing that?
It doesn't even make sense.
Virginia Heffernan, another anti-Trumper, is writing in the LA Times.
And I just have to read this one paragraph because There's just a lot in here.
So I'm taking this out of a larger anti-Trump article.
But this one paragraph is kind of special.
She says, Understanding Trump is a fool's errand.
He's sui generis.
Now first of all, who writes an article meant to be consumed by the general public who reads the LA Times and uses a phrase like sui generis?
Sui generis?
How many of you know what that means?
2%? So if you've got a writer who uses a term that no more than 2% of the people reading it even know what the frickin' word means, you're not a good writer.
Sorry. Sorry.
There's no other way to say that.
If you're using vocabulary that the people who read your stuff don't understand, unless you have some strategy about it, You're just a bad writer.
Don't use sui generis.
Let me tell you what it means. It means one of a kind.
Do you know how I know that?
I looked it up just before this periscope.
I've been hearing it in the news a lot.
It's one of those words that it's getting around.
People are using it.
I'd heard it a few times and I thought, huh, I don't have to look that up because nobody's going to be dumb enough to use that term again.
And then somebody did.
And then Somebody did again.
I thought, what's up with this?
Anyway, so this is the new term.
It just means one of a kind.
Why can't you say one of a kind?
No reason. Why would you say sui generis?
I don't even know what...
Is that French?
I don't even know what language that is.
Why would you say that instead of just one of a kind or unique or one-off?
Bad writing. Alright, so he's sui generis and far too erratic and finally insubstantial to reward close attention.
What? It feels like things are being made up with sentences.
Like there's nothing there, so you try to construct something out of nothing with the way you word it.
He's far too erratic.
Based on what measurement?
Is there an erratic scale?
Is there some way to measure that?
Is there such a thing as too erratic and just erratic enough?
What kind of weird, baseless, unsupported opinion is too erratic?
And then she says, and finally, insubstantial.
So she's calling President Trump insubstantial.
What's that even mean?
Well, I know what the word insubstantial means, but it seems to me that he's the most substantial person in the entire planet.
Who is more substantial?
I mean, impactful, meaningful, powerful, important.
Who is more substantial than President Trump right now?
Nobody. The whole world, there's nobody more substantial than him.
And she just throws this into a sentence like it's somehow obvious.
Well, he's too insubstantial to reward close attention.
What? Are we rewarding people by paying attention?
That's not how it works.
We just look at things that we like looking at.
We look at things that are interesting.
We're not rewarding people with our intention.
Hey, hey, I'm going to read you a comment to give you a reward.
That's not how it works.
We just look at stuff we want to look at.
She goes on. Trump zealots.
Trump zealots.
So now, if you're a Trump supporter, you're a zealot.
Why can't you just be a Trump supporter?
Why can't you just look at your choices and say, I think I like this one better.
But no, you're a zealot.
Are there no Biden zealots?
Do you know why there are no Biden zealots?
Because he doesn't inspire any passion.
Nobody really cares.
But if somebody cares about what you're doing, well, I guess you're a zealot if people like what you're doing.
Trump zealots are another matter.
So now she's going to get to you guys.
Many of you are Trump supporters.
They are part of the tradition of radical converts in American history who elected to forfeit their authentic personalities and principles rather than refine or strengthen them.
What? What do these sentences even mean?
I don't know what you're saying.
Alright, so I'm talking to you.
This is all of you.
You're part of a tradition of radical converts.
Maybe you didn't even know that.
Did you know you're a radical convert?
Or you're in the tradition of it.
And that you've forfeited your authentic personality and principles?
Who did that?
Did you do that?
Did you forfeit your principles just because you like one candidate more than the other choices?
I don't think so. I don't think you've forfeited any principles.
Even the, let's say, the religious right, who would not necessarily approve of Trump's personal life or his style, even they haven't forfeited any principles.
They still exactly have the same principles.
All they did was look at their choices.
We got one of these, we got one of these.
We like this one better. It's a world with tough choices.
Nobody gets their exact candidate.
Who offered you your exact candidate?
Nobody offered. You don't get to pick your exact candidate.
That's not how it works. You get the one that's good enough or better than the other ones.
All right. Then Virginia Heffernan says, we need to stay focused, do we?
Do we need to stay focused on how so many Americans came to this pass and took this destructive course?
How did it happen to you?
You poor, poor bastards.
You were such normal and happy people.
And then, it must have been somehow the Trump cult pulled you in.
You became a zealot.
You gave away your authentic personality and principles.
That happened to you.
Did you notice?
Because I'll bet you didn't notice that you were any different.
Probably didn't notice.
And then she goes on to say that the Trump cult, okay, now you're a cult, will define American politics for decades to come, even after its dear leader is gone.
Well, yeah. Yeah, President Trump's impact will affect things for decades.
That's true. All right, so all of this looks like crazy talk to me, in which the author is trying to construct something out of words that doesn't exist in the actual world.
But if you word it right, it feels like you're talking about something of substance, but maybe not.
I have a friend who is a very deep anti-Trumper, and he sent me a list of all the reasons that Trump is a disaster.
So I want you to read, and I want you to tell you that this is a friend who is very intelligent.
So we're talking about We're talking about a Democrat who I can confirm is one of the smartest people you'll ever meet.
Like, super smart. Went to grade school, etc.
So here are the things that he calls out for all the reasons that Trump is a disaster.
Are you ready? Number one, economically.
Massive income inequality.
When you woke up this morning...
Did it go like this?
I'm waking up today.
Oh my God.
Has the income inequality gotten worse?
How will I go forward today?
How will I live with all the income inequality?
It's literally the thing nobody thinks about.
Even poor people didn't wake up today and say, ah, the income inequality.
But I'll bet a lot of people who used to not have jobs, but now do, because unemployment is better than maybe ever, I'll bet all those people are not complaining about income inequality because theirs just got less.
So, if the first thing on your list is a concept that nobody even feels, talks about, or cares about, except it's something that people talk about on the news, that's it.
That's your number one complaint.
Your number one complaint.
And I've never even seen anybody make an argument that it even necessarily leads to anything bad, directly or indirectly.
Alright, but he goes on.
He acknowledges high employment.
Okay, good. But low wage growth.
What? What network or news sources is he watching in which he thinks...
That one of the top complaints about this president is low wage growth.
Is not our wage growth actually better?
Is it not better than it's been under a prior president?
What news source is he looking at?
And he's talking about people taking multiple gig jobs, etc.
Now that's all true, but isn't it trending in the right direction?
I mean, my news sources say it is.
Trending in the right direction.
Right, and the cost of the living, blah, blah, blah.
He goes on to say no progress on health care.
No progress on health care?
Again, what news source is he looking at when he says no progress on health care?
Have there not been law changes that allow people to do things across state lines?
Have there not been things out of the Health and Human Services group, I think it was, in which...
No, was it the FDA? Whichever cabinet it is that is promoting more generics.
So they sped up the generics, so it lowers the price.
Now, you could say he hasn't done enough, and I say that too.
So I criticize President Trump on not doing enough for health care.
But to say no progress on health care, That just means you're not watching the right news.
Because there's been identical, clearly, things that make a real difference in healthcare.
Not enough, but they're real.
Tax cuts help the rich.
That's just a talking point.
It's not something that is part of the real world.
Whenever you talk about tax cuts helping the rich, well, I don't want to get into a long gill net.
But if the rich pay most of the taxes, a tax cut's going to help them more.
If you want to put serious money into the economy, you're probably going to have to cut their taxes.
I don't want to get into that argument, but it's a weak problem.
Alright, so cuts in food stamps and school lunches.
I have my own concerns about environmental stuff, so I'd agree with him on that.
Then he goes on to say, socially there's more divisiveness than any time, meaning race.
Now, if you're watching the news and you're watching both the left and the right, would you say that President Trump is the cause of the racial divisiveness?
I wouldn't. I'd say it's the way he's reported.
In other words, the way he's covered causes it.
Because if you just reported what Trump does, you would end up with what Major Garrett said recently, and he's no pro-Trump-er.
He said that any president would be happy to have the record that President Trump has already recorded for race.
So he's, you know, everything from prison reform to supporting historically black colleges, etc., So, this is just a complete brainwashing situation where if you only watch the news on the left, you would come to believe that the racial problems are because of Trump as opposed to the reporting.
It's just the reporting.
If they reported what he does instead of what they imagine he's thinking, there wouldn't be any problem at all.
And I always say that I don't think that this problem goes down to real people.
I think it's a news problem.
I'm going to sneeze.
Excuse me.
Aren't you lucky I got the microphone on just in time.
Then he goes on to say that we have a disastrous trade war with China and its hurt farmers and And I'm thinking, the trade deals that he says are a disaster just got approved by both Democrats and Republicans.
Even the Democrats say they're good deals compared to what we had.
When he talks about it hurt the farmers, that was the plan.
The plan is that some part of our economy would be hurt.
But in the long run, it would be better in general.
That was the actual plan.
So to say it hurt one segment of the economy is not to say you shouldn't have done it, and it's not to say it didn't work.
There was a cost so we could get these larger benefits.
And even the Democrats agreed.
They signed the deals.
So what news source are you watching that you're coming up with these opinions?
And then defense saying that getting out of the Iranian nuclear deal was all bad, to which I responded, was he aware that the old Iranian nuclear deal guaranteed that Iran would have nuclear weapons?
Guaranteed it. Was that the deal he wanted?
And now we're looking at it, Trump just shut down their whole proxy business by killing the guy who was feeding it.
And, you know, maybe we'll be surprised, but it's looking like proxy wars are down, and it's looking like Iran's economy is on the brink, meaning that they'll get flexible.
It's looking a lot to me like this is the best situation we've ever been in with Iran, and in fact the whole Middle East.
Then he throws in the abandonment of the Kurds in Syria.
Have you heard an update on that?
Have you heard any stories about all the tragedies because of our abandonment of the Kurds?
Maybe there's bad stuff happening that we don't know about, but have you heard of any?
Because to me it looks like just another overreaction.
That if you were to look at what's actually happening on the ground and you talk to the Kurds, they'd say, yeah, we're kind of unhappy about this situation, but it's working out.
What news is he looking at?
Anyway, ending of intermediate nuclear weapons deal with Russia.
Does that make any difference?
Is Russia going to attack the United States with nuclear weapons?
I don't think so. And do they need any extra ones if they want to destroy the United States?
Would it matter if Russia got a little extra good nuclear weapons?
It doesn't really matter how many times they could destroy the United States.
If Russia just went from being able to destroy the United States guaranteed 100 times over to 1,000 times over, did that make any difference?
I don't think so. I don't think it made any difference at all.
If we get in a war with Russia, we're all dead.
Details don't matter too much.
Anyway, and then he ends with, What do we say about Justin Trudeau?
Is the American view of Justin Trudeau, or Angela Merkel, or you name your leader, are we not kind of laughing at them behind their backs?
I mean, isn't it just normal business?
They laugh at our president, they mock him, we laugh at their leaders, we mock him.
Does any of it mean anything?
It doesn't. Is the UK not going to do a trade agreement with us because that one time some people laughed behind Trump's back?
Are they going to say, no, we can't do a trade deal with you, because remember there was that one time we laughed behind your back, so I guess we can't do a trade deal?
No! It makes no difference.
They will do a trade deal because it's good for them.
They will be our allies in defense and NATO because it's good for them.
Countries don't operate on the who laughed at you more behind your back principle.
It's all based on self-interest, and we're the biggest dog in every fight, so self-interest assumes that they will continue working with us.
All right, that's enough on Trump derangement syndrome.
I want to give you some tips on stress reduction.
This is part of my ongoing series.
I'm going to raise my hands again, so if anybody's looking through Later, they're searching through this to find the part where I talk about this topic.
They'll see me with my hands in the air and know to stop and watch it.
So, anxiety is different from stress.
Anxiety can be that causeless thing that you're worried about and it's irrational.
But it has at least a little overlap with stress in general.
And what I mean is, if you could lower your stress in general by doing all the right lifestyle stuff, you're probably in better shape for handling everything else.
So if you've got some anxiety, Just normal stress reduction won't make it go away, but it could lessen its effect on you.
So let's talk about that.
I treat stress reduction as a full-time job, and I have since college.
Prior to college, I probably had more stress than I wanted, and I said to myself, you know, I'm just going to spend all of my time getting rid of this because I hate going through the day feeling stressed or anxious or whatever.
I'm going to make it my full-time job.
That stress is going to go away.
And I'm going to work on that.
So I wrote a book called How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big about how to create systems that can fix your fitness and your diet and your sleep and all those things.
And I want to talk today about sleep.
Specifically. And here's the thing I want to say.
People don't seem to realize that sleep is a learned skill.
Some of you probably don't know that.
There are some people who think that they're not good at getting to sleep, and they have trouble sleeping.
And there are other people who don't have trouble.
But I'm here to tell you that sleeping properly is a skill, and it's not something you just want.
If all you're doing is, ah, I sure wish I slept better, but you're not doing anything differently, you don't understand how sleep works.
It's a skill. I'm going to give you the skill and suggest that you make a system out of experimenting for your personal situation.
So we're all a little different.
So the tips I give you are close to universal, but you might need to tweak them for your own purposes.
So you should experiment continuously.
Continuously. Don't ever stop finding a better way to get good sleep.
So change your pillows, change your sheets, get a different mattress.
Just keep plugging at it.
Those things might not make a difference in your case.
Some cases they will, but don't stop.
It's a lifelong process to get better at sleeping.
It's a skill. Here are some of the things you need to know.
Number one, if you can't get to sleep at night, maybe you didn't work hard enough.
I know you don't want to hear that, but in my own experience, which I'm not suggesting necessarily extends to everybody else, but in my experience, if I have worked hard all day, if I have exercised that day, and that's the big one, if I've physically exercised and I've worked hard, I never have trouble sleeping.
Period. And when I don't do enough of those two things, I do.
It's a pretty one-to-one correlation.
So the first thing you should say to yourself is, what do I need to do with my day so that by the time I get in bed, I'm primed to sleep?
If you're not active every day, at least taking a long walk, cleaning the garage, it doesn't have to be going to the gym.
But if you haven't physically been active, good luck getting to sleep.
Because if your body isn't a little bit tired, It's not going to work for you.
So the first thing you should tell yourself is if you can't sleep, maybe you didn't work hard enough.
Which could have been just exercise for your own benefit.
It doesn't have to be work work.
The next thing you need to know is that your body and your mind are sort of a feedback loop.
So if you have some anxiety in your mind, it'll come out in your body.
So your body will feel anxious and stressed.
What happens when your body feels anxious and stressed?
It feeds back to your mind.
So your mind is making your body anxious, your body is making your mind anxious, and it's just reinforcing.
It's hard To get your mind to just stop.
It's much easier to get your body to slow down.
Because you can just exhaust it.
Just exercise until your body is just exhausted.
And that's one way you can break out of the loop.
Because if your body is exhausted, it's not going to feed back the anxiety and stress so much to your brain, and then your brain won't be part of the loop anymore.
So that's the main thing.
Stop thinking it's a brain problem and start thinking of it as a physical body problem.
Exhaust your body.
Your brain will follow.
Here's the next thing.
Don't bring up bad topics after 8pm.
You can adjust the 8pm to whenever your normal sleep time is.
But after about 8pm, especially if you're in a relationship, It's tempting to, let's say you haven't seen each other all day, and you want to talk about these things because it's the only time you have, you know, the kids are in bed or whatever.
Don't do it. Just don't do it.
8 o'clock, or, you know, adjust for your own situation.
But after 8 o'clock, don't talk about the things that are going to keep you awake.
Just don't do it. That's a big one.
And certainly don't have those conversations in bed after you get in bed.
Definitely don't do that.
Here's one of my biggest, most important tips.
Most of you will reject this, but I promise you it's the most important.
So if there's only one thing you want to learn, maybe the exercise is the most important.
But in the top two, Is wake up and go to sleep at the same time all week.
Don't want to hear that, do you?
Because you want to get up, you know, when you have to go to work, you want to get up early, but then it's the weekend.
You're like, oh, finally, it's the weekend.
I can sleep in. There's nothing worse for your sleep, and if you ruin your sleep, there's almost nothing worse except maybe diet to hurt your overall health.
All right? Top rule.
Get up the same time, Saturday and Sunday, or close to it.
Don't do the go to bed at 3 a.m., sleep till noon thing because you like to party.
It's fun. Now, I understand the younger you are, the more tempting that will be.
Your social life might require it.
It might be how you meet people.
It might be integral to who you are.
But if you do that...
Just know that the trade-off is you will be tired and sleepy and it will cost you everywhere else in your life.
Probably not worth it.
So I also say that alcohol is poison.
So if you're drinking, you're going to have sleep problems independent of the fact that it might keep you up late.
So number one rule.
Get up and go to sleep approximately the same times every day of the week.
Because if you don't turn it into a habit...
That your body recognizes as a habit, it's going to be tough.
You've got to turn it into a habit so that your body at about 9 p.m., 10 p.m.
is already telling you, go to sleep, go to sleep.
Here's one. Don't let your bed be the place that you use to not sleep.
And this means several things.
Don't go to bed and then start a task.
Don't go to bed and do a project while you're in bed.
Don't go to bed and watch TV unless you're one of those people that TV puts you to sleep.
That's a different situation. Don't use your bed for anything but sleeping and, of course, sex.
Those two things are the only things your bed should be.
If you find that it's 1am in the morning, And you can't sleep, and you put it into work, right?
You toss and turn, and you're just not going to sleep.
Get up. Get out of bed.
Get completely out of bed.
Go sit on the couch.
Go pet the dog.
Go walk around. Try it again in 15 minutes.
Because you want your bed to be the place that you do sleep, Not the thing that you go and you toss and turn when you can't sleep.
So if you know you're not going to get to sleep in the next half hour, because you can just tell it's just not going to happen, get up.
And by the way, this is what the experts recommend.
I'm not making up any of this.
There's nothing that I'm saying that doesn't come directly from pretty much all experts.
It's probably bad to be looking at your devices in bed.
Put them away. I know that's tempting.
But these glowing screens are just terrible for your sleep.
Here's another tip. You want your room to be as dark as possible.
Ideally, completely dark.
The more light there is, the less you can sleep.
It's purely biological.
There will be people who tell you, no, I sleep better when there's a little light on.
Because maybe you're afraid if it gets too dark or whatever.
But I would suggest that biologically, there's probably no exception.
Biologically, probably the darker it is, the better.
So get blackout curtains in your bedroom if you can.
Obviously, keep away from caffeine too late in the afternoon.
That's going to keep you up. Temperature is important.
I like it cold.
Other people don't. Here's another one.
Don't do the list of what you do tomorrow while you're in bed.
Never ever get in bed and then run through what you have to do tomorrow.
I treat the next day as though it doesn't exist.
When I go to bed, I spend zero time thinking about tomorrow.
You should get in that habit.
Never think about tomorrow while you're in bed.
It's the worst thing you could do.
Never think about your list, your chores, your anything.
If you're concerned about those things, get up an hour earlier.
Go to bed earlier and get up an hour.
It's a good thing to get up early Reduce your stress.
You're not going to be late.
Read some things. Have your coffee.
Make your to-do list once you're fresh in the morning.
That's your best thing to do.
And then, as I said in the start, all of these are just starting tips.
If you do these starting tips, that's just going to get you going.
But this should be a lifetime of experimentation.
Do you sleep better at this temperature?
Do you sleep better with a fan on?
Fan is a good sort of background sound.
Do you sleep better in pajamas?
Do you sleep better in this kind of sheet?
Just keep at it.
It's your full-time job to make sure that you don't have stress.
Now, reducing your stress, as I said, doesn't get rid of deep-rooted anxiety problems.
But you don't want both.
You don't want to have anxiety that you've always had all your life that's just sort of there for various situations.
You don't want to add to that by being also stressed.
So treat them as if they're a pair of things and you don't want them working together.
So if you can get rid of one, do it.
What if your spouse needs the exact opposite of you to sleep?
That's a big problem. I mean, ultimately, that's a personal problem.
Let me tell you this.
I'm going to tell you something that will change the lives of a bunch of you.
Percentage-wise, not that many.
But a lot of you, because there are close to 3,000 people watching this.
Probably 100,000 people will watch this by the time it's done and distribute it to different platforms.
And of 100,000, A whole bunch of you are going to have your whole situation changed by what I tell you next.
People don't talk about it because it's embarrassing.
But you can see in the comments That people sleep in separate bedrooms very commonly when they're married.
Very commonly.
You can see the comments are just going crazy with people saying separate rooms, separate rooms, separate rooms.
If you have the luxury, and it's totally a luxury, and one of you snores, or one of you needs a different temperature, or you sleep at different times, whatever's going on, Just know, and here's the part where I'm helping you, just know that if you have a gathering of your best friends, you know, a bunch of couples instead of party, just look around the room.
I guarantee you, one third of those people are sleeping in separate rooms and they're just not telling you.
Because people don't like to admit that because it sounds like there's something wrong when actually it's just a better way to sleep.
So simply knowing that it's a normal thing and lots of normal people do it, they just don't talk about it, just freed about 10,000 people who just said, seriously?
Normal people with good relationships sometimes sleep in separate rooms?
No, not sometimes.
Very commonly.
So if you're one of those people who needs to do that, you have all the social freedom you need.