All Episodes
Previous Next
April 20, 2020 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
39:58
Episode 924 Scott Adams: Learn the User Interface For Reality
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, come on in.
We got some stuff to talk about.
Good stuff, fun stuff.
Things that will blow your mind, possibly delight you.
Possibly blow your mind and then delight you.
But it's all happening here.
Oh, I don't know if it's morning or evening.
I'm going to put down my shades though.
Let's see if I look more handsome when there's less light on me.
Because I think I do, if you know what I mean.
Alright. Let's get to it.
Yeah, let's get to it.
Christina, nice of you to join.
So, I was watching the interview that Bill Maher did with Dan Crenshaw.
You know Dan Crenshaw?
And if you know who Dan Crenshaw is, you know that he's probably one of the better communicators on the right.
Probably in the top five or so.
You put him in there with Matt Gaetz and, I don't know, a few other people.
Darker, please. Less light.
Much less light would be much better.
Anyway, so if you watch the interview, it was going around the internet, and people were saying that Crenshaw dismantled Bill Maher and everything.
But here's what I saw.
Now, of course, I can't read minds, but here's some speculation, and you can decide how close this sounds to you.
Doesn't it seem reasonable to you that Bill Maher probably hears a lot of arguments that agree with the left.
Probably hears them all the time.
But I'll bet he doesn't hear many good arguments from the right.
He probably hears the one pundit that CNN allows to be on their air every 10 minutes or every 10 days or something.
And he probably samples a little bit of the stuff, the clips and the quotes taken out of context and stuff.
But I'll bet Bill Maher And this is just speculation.
Through no fault of his own, probably has a gigantic blind spot for what the good argument is on the right.
I've noticed this a few times.
It doesn't ever seem as though Bill Maher is disagreeing with the best arguments on the right, but of course he's disagreeing with the dumb ones that don't make any sense.
And the reason I'm somewhat I've been watching for years, and I know that he's capable of changing his mind under any circumstances, so long as there's a good argument and there's some data.
So if you've watched him forever, you know that for people on both the left and the right, he can be maddeningly frustrating because he doesn't just automatically agree with one team.
Everybody finds some reason to be mad at one thing or another.
So, here's what I saw.
And I think that Bill Maher got a little flavor of this when I was on his show back in 2016, I guess.
And it goes like this.
I think that when Dan Crenshaw started talking, it looked like you could see in Bill's face that he was learning for the first time that there's another curtain behind the curtain.
In other words, somebody as tuned in as Bill Maher can not only see the show that everybody sees, the one that's in public, but he's one of the few people who can look behind the curtain.
And I think he thought that if he could see the show and that he could also look behind the curtain, that's all there is to see.
And I feel as if what I was watching, and again, this requires a lot of speculation and assumption in my part, But it felt like what I was seeing was that Bill Maher was learning from Dan Crenshaw's better communicating that there was a curtain behind the curtain.
And there might be a whole bunch of stuff.
Who knows how big?
Might be a little, might be a lot.
But it was like Bill was, for the first time, hearing something that made sense that was coming from the other team.
And I think it made him think, is there something here?
Now, if it had been anybody else, they would just be dismissing it because it's just team sport.
But what makes somebody like a Bill Maher, and I would say Sam Harris would be in the same category, even if you don't agree, I think he is, of people who can change their mind.
They just have to hear a better argument and see facts that support it.
So that was fascinating.
A lot of people asked me for the last few weeks to...
Talk about Dr. Shiva's ideas on treating coronavirus, and I hadn't really looked into them until today, so I have a preliminary opinion.
A preliminary opinion.
My preliminary opinion is that, in essence, what he's promoting, or not promoting, he doesn't have any money in it as far as I know, but what he's recommending is that Some kind of an intensive vitamin treatment with specific vitamins, I think A and D and C, would make a big difference in the coronavirus, treating it.
Now, here's the thing.
I have to give you some background.
Some of you know, years ago, I tried to start a food company making this burrito product that I tried to stuff with all the vitamins and minerals you would need for the whole day.
And I thought, wouldn't that be great?
You could eat a delicious burrito and And make sure you got all your vitamins and minerals so even if the rest of the day didn't go well, you'd be set.
And in that process, what I learned is that the science of nutrition is largely made up.
It's all just garbage.
And the science of vitamins and minerals is extra garbage.
So part of the reason that I ended up bailing out is that I couldn't I couldn't make a product with a claim that, hey, it's got these vitamins and minerals, if all the science was evaporating behind me.
When I started it, I thought the science was pretty solid, but it was honestly just an assumption.
I just assumed.
We knew that vitamins are good for you, right?
Didn't you assume that science knows if vitamins are good for you, and which ones and how much?
There's no such thing.
The science of vitamins is largely just ridiculousness.
Now, I'm not saying that vitamins have no value.
Obviously you need your vitamin C so you don't get scurvy.
Vitamin D probably does have all kinds of benefits, etc.
So some of the basics we certainly know.
But beyond the basics, it's just the Wild West.
I may be biased by the fact that I spend time in this domain of vitamins, and what I found is that it was all charlatans and garbage.
That was my experience.
Now, does that mean that the next thing that comes up is untrue?
Because all the last stuff was.
It doesn't. It doesn't mean that at all.
So I'm confessing my bias and So hear this part really clearly.
My bias is that when I hear a remarkable sounding claim involving ordinary vitamins, even at high dosages or even if they're intravenous, but if I hear something that's an extraordinary claim about vitamins, I just assume it's not true.
Okay, so that's my starting point.
Let me give you an analogy to make my point.
Okay. If you get an email from a Nigerian prince who says he can get his money back from a bank if you help him out, do you need to know if that's real?
Do you need to research it?
Do you need to ask for identification?
No, you don't.
Because it's an email from a Nigerian prince.
That whole category is very unlikely ever to produce a real one.
Might. I might.
I mean, I can't say there will never, ever be a Nigerian prince who has really got some trouble and you could help him if you just return his email.
I'm not saying it's impossible.
I'm just saying I've never seen it.
So if somebody tomorrow says, hey, hey, I know these have mostly been not true, but have you seen this email?
It's from a Nigerian prince.
And I don't know, I know what you're saying, that all those other ones were not real, but I feel good about this one.
So, analogies, of course, are imperfect, and therefore it's one of the reasons that they never persuade anybody, and I'm sure I didn't persuade you with that one.
The point is that I'm biased.
The point is not that you should believe it's real or not real based on that story.
The point is I'm biased.
And so when I see a remarkable claim that has this form, it's very remarkable, and suspiciously, the medical community is ignoring this claim and or is unfamiliar with it.
So if it's a remarkable claim about vitamins, and the other claim is that the medical community is missing this obvious thing, It's sort of in the category of things that are never true.
But again, this could be the one time.
Maybe it is. So I tweeted it out.
Dr. Shiva had some exchanges with somebody.
I tweeted it out because it had links and description of what he was talking about and asked any experts to give me an opinion on whether it looked real.
Now, if some experts come in, And say, Scott, Scott, Scott, he's on to something?
Well, I'm open to changing my mind.
I can definitely change my mind.
I would just have to hear somebody smart say, oh yeah, yeah, I get it.
All the other Nigerian princes were fake.
Well, honestly, this one looks pretty good.
If somebody says that, I'll reconsider.
So the question is out.
So, now I saw in the comments, somebody said, you should debate Dr.
Shiva. Are you kidding?
Are you kidding? What good would that do?
Me debating Dr.
Shiva? Let me do the debate for you so that you don't have to sit through it.
I will now act out me debating Dr.
Shiva on this topic.
First, I'll do the role of Dr.
Shiva. Blah, blah, something I don't understand.
Meaning Scott doesn't understand.
And vitamins and stuff and science.
And I have multiple degrees from MIT. And then it's my turn to debate.
And I say, I didn't understand any of that, honestly.
Where do we go from here?
Because I don't even know what those words mean.
Do you have a book or something I can read to learn about this microbiology stuff and immunology and virology and statistics?
If I do a little studying, I'll do a little studying and then we can have this debate again.
But at the moment, I don't know what any of those words mean.
So we're not getting anywhere.
You see that it would be no point in debate, right?
Because I would say it's my bias that these things are usually not true.
And then what would he say?
Well, I can see why you would have that bias based on your experience.
Right? That's sort of the beginning and the end of the debate.
Because I think Dr.
Shiva would say, well, of course.
You've just admitted that you have a bias.
I can see the reason you would have a bias, your experience.
Of course you have a bias that way.
That's it. That's the whole debate.
We're done now. Because I don't understand his points.
That's why I asked for somebody else to explain it to me.
Alright. I think what triggered me is that in Dr.
Shiva's tweet, he made an assumption about Bill Gates' motives.
Bill Gates' internal thoughts.
And if you pair something that looks sketchy just by its nature, even if it's not, it just looks sketchy because of its nature, And you add that to conspicuous public mind reading?
Well, that does not help your credibility because it seemed like that was important, that it would require knowing what Bill Gates was thinking and that what he was thinking was he was trying to make money with vaccines or something.
So somebody sent me a link to PolitiFact where they fact-checked all the wild Bill Gates rumors.
Now, My version of debunking the wild Bill Gates rumors, mine goes like this.
And maybe you've heard this argument before.
Blah, blah, blah, Bill Gates wants to depopulate the world.
Here's my argument.
You know all those Nigerian Prince emails?
That's the end of my argument.
Because it's just such a ridiculous claim.
I'm not going to spend one second Googling whether Bill Gates ever said he wants to depopulate the world.
Do you know why? Because if you ever thought that was true, there's something wrong with your brain.
All right? This is not something you Google to find out maybe he said he wants to depopulate the world.
He didn't say he wants to depopulate the world.
And, you know, I checked political fact, and of course that never happened.
What was the other one? The other one was some horrible thing with vaccines in India.
And I actually thought that one could have been true.
It's just that even if it had been true, it just would have been an example of a drug trial that didn't go well.
It wouldn't mean anybody was evil or had bad intentions.
That's the whole point of the drug trial.
But it turns out that it wasn't even true.
So that whole India vaccine thing was just all made up, just BS. So I tweeted that if you want to go follow the links so you can convince yourself.
So if any of you thought that the Bill Gates stuff was true, you really should have asked me.
I tweeted some restaurant reopening ideas, which I would like to share with you for those of you who don't see it.
So here's the starting point.
You know, one of the creative mistakes we make is to say, hey, what can we do to get our restaurants back to where...
You always fall for hoaxes.
Block. Not true.
So people think, hey, how do we get our restaurants back to where they were?
And I say... If the restaurant model has just blown up, you should not be asking this question.
You should not be asking how to get restaurants back to the way they were.
Because you rarely get a chance to blow everything up and just rethink it from the scratch.
And so I think you should be asking, how could we make restaurants better than they ever were?
Because you should at least ask the question.
I mean, it might turn out that the answer is you can't do it.
But if the only question you're asking is how do we get back to the way we were, that's sort of a loser mindset.
Because when do you get to have stuff blown up like this?
I mean, it's all bad news, but on the other hand, you kind of get to start from scratch and really get creative and be flexible.
Maybe there's some local ordinances that can be adjusted a little bit that normally wouldn't be possible.
So here's some things I want to suggest in that realm.
Suppose DoorDash, or any of the apps that let you order food to be picked up at restaurants, suppose it added an option for dining in.
And instead of where you put in your address of your house, you put in your table number.
So if you're ordering from a certain restaurant and you put in the table number, that means you're there.
And so there's no server talking to you to get your order.
You just order by app when you're in the restaurant.
And then it comes over and it's sat on a side table so that nobody puts it in front of each of you.
There's nobody taking dishes away.
They just put a side table there and you help yourself so that you're not interacting.
Now, of course, in the long run, especially a high-end restaurant, you want the full table service, but at the moment, you might have to get flexible.
I also thought that you could add a little tent card, a little, you know, a sign that's on the table that has the phone numbers to text if you want to send a message to the kitchen.
You know, it's not the chef who answers the phone, but if you want to send a message to the kitchen or the front office or the server or something, you can just text it.
And it would be somebody whose job it is just to take the text and tell whoever it is that needs to be told.
So that's one way you could avoid human contact.
You might also want to relax local zoning laws so you can expand sidewalks out during warm weather and just maybe close the streets for a while, for months.
Just close any streets that have a lot of restaurants on them because usually there's not much parking on the street anyway.
You don't lose that much. And usually there's an easier way to get around than the street that has all the restaurants.
So just close it.
Let the restaurants expand into the street so you've got lots of space around tables.
And maybe even allow dogs.
In my town, you can't bring your dog to a restaurant even if you're eating outside.
But what if you could?
At least temporarily.
Wouldn't you like to bring your dog out to dinner and you have him on the leash, of course?
A lot of people would like that.
At least in my town, that would be a big thing.
And you can also imagine that using the honor system, because you can never enforce this, you would ask people to come in only at least in the beginning with the people that they're isolating with.
So if you're isolating with your family, you can bring your family and set them to table at a restaurant.
But you don't want to mix people who have been separately isolating just because they went to a restaurant.
Later you can do that.
And maybe if it's a business meeting and you just have to have People cross-pollinating.
You have some special places away from other people.
Something like that. But the larger idea is just to rethink these things from scratch.
And rather than say, how do we get back to where we were?
Think about how to make it better.
Alright, I promised you that I would give you the user interface for reality.
And I'm working on a book idea.
I don't know if I'll write it or not.
It has to do with filters.
And I was trying to think of all the different filters that one can put on life, and I've argued that if you have experience in enough domains, you can look through more windows, or another way to say that is you have more filters by which to understand the world.
And I would contend this is not yet a complete list, and I might end up combining some categories a little bit, but let's say this is about 90% right.
I contend that these are the filters that if you learned enough about these, and you wouldn't have to be an expert on any of these things, but if you learned, you know, logic and religion...
Let me explain that one.
As a filter, what that means is to understand...
Let me get that guy out of here.
Bad person goes away.
Alright, that's always satisfying.
Did Soros hire you?
We'll get rid of the crazy people.
Anymore? Alright.
So, having gotten rid of our trolls, so mating is the idea that you can see the world through the lens that everything we do is to show off To get a mate.
Even if you have a mate.
We're just sort of automatically designed for mating.
So if you see the world through that lens, you can really understand a lot of the world.
You should know a little bit about statistics and science, persuasion, economics.
Simutation. That's not a word.
Let's call it simulation.
The simulation theory that we might be a simulation.
The The idea that some people just see the world as winners and losers.
Other people might see it as predator and prey.
There's also a strategy way to look at the world.
There's an abundance mindset.
The abundance mindset is that you're not taking things from other people.
You're finding a way that everybody gets something.
And then the moist robot idea, which might be redundant.
Just the idea that we're dumb machines and irrational.
So, my concept is this.
That if you knew enough about these fields, you would have the user interface to reality.
And you would be able to actually see your reality and manipulate it almost in a godlike way.
I said almost. I'm not saying you're omnipotent, but that you could do things which would not seem possible to people who had fewer filters.
So the more filters you have, the more clear is, you know, if you could see it like an analogy, the more clear the screen is and more obvious the menu choices are.
So this probably would require a book to really explain it well, but the The useful part of this is that you probably don't need more of it.
Examples. Yeah, what would be a good example?
Let's see if I can pick one.
Well, let's take abundance.
So, we have a problem with communist China because it looks like they think that the best thing for China is For the United States to be weaker.
So that's the opposite of an abundance mindset.
President Trump has an abundance mindset.
He used it with North Korea.
He used it with President Xi.
Obviously, he's not working in China, and who knows what's happening in North Korea, but they don't seem to be mad at us at the moment.
So that's good. But the President said, hey, if we work together, we both get richer.
If we stay enemies, we don't.
Now, obviously, It seems that China has some kind of winner-loser, predator-prey mentality, that there are only people winning and losing, and they want to be on the winning team.
Whereas the president, of course, still has those filters as well.
But he has extra filters.
So instead of, you know, obviously knowing that if you went to China and said, hey, it's a win or lose situation.
One of us can win and one is going to lose.
You know, good luck.
We're going to win and you're going to lose.
That wouldn't really get you very far in negotiations.
But if you go into it, if you go into the negotiations with an abundance mindset, You can maybe pry some flexibility out of the other side.
Alright. So, let me give you some other examples.
I like to use this example all the time.
If you understand economics and you understand business models, then you probably understand that it's very unlikely you'll get a speeding ticket at 6am on a Sunday morning.
Now, that's something that you could see clearly if you have the economics filter.
And if it's not obvious to you why you're not going to get a ticket at 6am on a Sunday morning, no matter how fast you speed, it's because you don't have that filter yet.
Let me explain why.
The police department is like every other organization.
They have a budget, and so they have to use the budget where it makes sense and not where it doesn't make sense, otherwise they'll run out of money and not be able to do the things they need.
So given that almost nobody has a car accident at 6 a.m.
on a Sunday morning, it's probably the least likely time this speeding is ever an actual safety problem because there's just nobody around.
And if they are, they're not drunk, you know, for the most part, 6 a.m., I would say.
Not too many drugs. And so, you will notice that economics would predict, it would predict that there are very few speed traps at 6 a.m.
on a Sunday morning, and I would argue that if you live to be 100, you might never see one.
So, that's a very trivial example, but I go through life with an understanding of business models and economics that does allow me to see around corners.
I can literally predict, based on economics, whether there's a policeman up ahead in that speed trap where they often hide.
So in my house, in my neighborhood, there's a place they often stay.
And I can predict that accurately, as it turns out.
All right. Let's take strategy.
Perfect example of that.
When I wrote my book, How to Failed Almost Everything and Still Win Big, I introduced the idea of systems versus goals and the idea of talent stacking.
I've talked about it enough that I don't need to explain it again.
But in the context I'm talking about here, a lot of people...
wrote to me, a lot, a lot, a lot of people, and said, my God, when I heard those things, it really, you know, it all came together, and then I had a strategy, and then I could implement it, and it's already working.
So, I would hear tremendous things about people learning that strategy, and when I would hear it, I would say to myself, you know, when I wrote that book, the thing I was most worried about is that people would say, we already knew that.
But I was hoping that people did not have enough sort of background and strategy to know that it makes sense to layer your skills intelligently and it makes sense to have systems versus goals.
I didn't know if people didn't know that until I wrote the book.
Because you really don't know what other people know.
I thought it would be additive and it turns out it was life-changing for a lot of people.
So that's a perfect example.
The strategy is not worth much unless you have some understanding of statistics.
And I don't mean that you have to be able to do the math.
I mean that you have to, in a common sense way, be able to look at things and say, okay, that's more likely than that.
Under these conditions, you wouldn't be able to tell what's true versus the margin of error.
I'm talking about the big level stuff.
For example, here's a perfect example.
The headline this week was that there was a study of Santa Clara residents, and they found that, I forget the exact number, but somewhere in the range of 2% of them seemed to have the antibodies for coronavirus, and that would indicate maybe there was a lot more of it in the general population than anybody assumed.
Now, Balaji Srinivasan, who, if you don't follow him on Twitter, you should, He has a background that would include all the credible knowledge, but most importantly, he understood statistics.
And he understood how to read the document.
And he looked at it and said, wait a minute, according to this, the reliability of the test is that it could have false positives up to, like, in that same neighborhood.
I'm rounding everything off to make it simple.
But that the false positives could be in that same neighborhood.
So in other words, it was a whole study that either showed that nothing happened or that there's wildly more virus and complete opposites and they're both demonstrated by the same data.
Now, did you know that?
When you read this study, did you know that?
I mean, I didn't even look at the details, and I'm not sure I would have picked it out if I had.
But the point is, the more you know about statistics, the more you can just look right past people's assertions to the truth.
Now, Bellagio could do that, and I couldn't.
Now, that doesn't mean that the study is bogus.
It just means that you can't be sure, which is completely different than we're sure that there's tons of virus in the world that we don't know about.
There's a big difference between, well, it could be true, and, oh, it's totally true.
We just studied it. Those are not that similar.
All right. Let's see.
Do you want some other...
Oh, here's some other examples.
I said winners and losers on here, but you could have said victims and winners, I suppose.
Victims and oppressors. So, if you see the world in terms of victims...
There's a good chance you're going to think you are one.
And when you start thinking you are one, your filter just starts producing evidence of it, confirmation bias.
And that can be a very frustrating and also maybe not too close to reality view of the world.
So that's a bad filter.
A better filter is that you're not a victim and that you have a lot of control over your life.
So that's just a better filter.
Anyway, I don't want to talk about the details of these.
I'm just asserting that there might be...
How many things are there here?
So there might be under 15 filters that can explain just about everything you see in life.
And I've said before that when I was very young...
I sought to understand the user interface for reality.
And I actually have dedicated my life, literally, to trying to figure out why things are the way they are and why it works and what can you do differently.
And this is sort of the result of it, that I started layering different skills together, especially a degree in economics, so I could understand that filter.
All right. I was asked to give you some sleeping tips for tonight, and I'm going to do that.
And I'm going to do it more easily this time.
So those of you who don't want to get sleepy yet, you might want to sign off now, and I wish you a good night.
Maybe I'll see you in the morning.
I hope so. Those of you who would like to relax before sleep, see if they can get an even better night's sleep than they have recently.
Recently. This will be the portion in which I calm you down and prep you for a great night's sleep.
And it goes like this.
Take a deep breath from the bottom of your lungs.
Not the top. Bottom of your lungs.
And then exhale out your nose.
Actually out of your mouth would be fine.
Inhale through your nose and exhale through your mouth.
And it's funny, you don't realize that during the day, your tension will make your breath shallower and shallower.
And if you simply breathe in the way you want to feel, your breath will take you there.
So if you take large, relaxed, deep breaths with no tension into your chest, it just automatically takes you to that place.
And it does it pretty quickly.
Now, make sure that you're in a relaxed place that requires no muscles to stay in the position you are.
You could be sitting up, you could be laying down, doesn't matter.
And now, again, think of the muscles in your hand.
Your hand should be down, not up like mine is, but squeeze your hand and make a tight fist and just hold it until you don't think you can hold it anymore.
And when you don't think you can hold it anymore, Just relax it.
Just let it all go.
And just know how it feels.
All the tension is out of your hand.
And now do the same thing with your other hand.
And then your feet.
You can just run through the sequence on your own time.
And you will be amazed that just concentrating on one body part, squeezing it, tightening it, and relaxing it, moving it all the way around your body, Will be amazing.
You'll be amazed at how well that works.
Now, here's the big payoff.
I taught you before, and many of you were on this periscope, that if I counted to 20, because I'm a trained hypnotist, and if anybody didn't know that, here's your warning, that this is hypnosis, but there's nothing sneaky to it.
I'm just helping you relax.
If you'd like to enjoy that, stick around.
If you would not like to be hypnotized, While I would not call this hypnosis per se, there's no actual trance involved, it would make you relaxed.
If you don't want that, this would be the time to find something else to do.
But, I'm going to count to 20, and you're going to hear my voice, if you're wearing headphones, much more effective.
And when you want to relax later tonight, you're going to hear my voice, but you'll be controlling the counting of my voice, and you'll count from 0 to 20, When you reach 20, you'll be really relaxed, and it'll be prepping you to drift off into a nice sleep.
And I'm going to start right now, and every time I count higher, one, you start getting sleepier and more relaxed, two, and going deeper, three, and now going deeper and deeper, four, five, And now much deeper.
Twice as deep now.
Six, seven, eight.
And going deeper. Doesn't matter if I skip a number.
Ten. I can skip two numbers.
Twelve. And you just get deeper.
And deeper and more relaxed.
And now as I head toward twenty, Toward the deepest and most relaxing sleep you've experienced in a long time.
Fifteen. Sixteen.
And going deeper. Seventeen.
And now so relaxed, feeling good.
Eighteen. And now I'm going to count backwards as part of an exercise in which when you wake up a little bit, but not all the way, and then I count you back toward twenty, You'll be deeper than if I had just gone to 20 in the first place.
So now 14, 13, 12.
You feel yourself getting a little more awake, a little more alert.
9, 8, 7.
You're about half more alert now.
6, 5.
And now we'll go back to 20.
7. Feel yourself relaxing.
See how much quicker it is than the first times you tried this.
Eight. Going deeper.
Nine. You feel your body just sinking into whatever you're on.
Ten. Eleven.
Going much deeper now.
Now twice as deep. Fourteen.
Going deeper. Fifteen.
Sixteen. Much, much deeper now.
Seventeen. Eighteen.
And going deeper. Nineteen.
Twenty. And now completely relaxed, almost floating.
It feels good.
Now twenty-one.
Twenty-two.
Deeper than you thought was possible.
And this is what you'll remember when you try to relax later.
You'll remember the counting, you'll remember how you felt, and you'll be able to reproduce it just by remembering it and counting yourself to 20.
But now I'm going to bring you back so that you can get ready for your evening and whatever's next.
19, 18, 17, starting to wake up 16, 15, 14.
About halfway there, 10.
Eight. Seven.
Almost awake now. Six.
Five. You're going to feel really good when you wake up.
Four. Oh my goodness, it's going to feel great when you wake up.
Three. Two.
One. Open your eyes if they're not already open.
You're completely alert, but more relaxed.
And later, when you talk yourself back to 20, you're going to have an amazing sleep.
And I'll leave you with that.
▲
Export Selection