My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Recommended follow, Andreas Backhaus @AndreasShrugged
NO evidence of Russia hacking DNC server
Whiteboard1: The Poorly Educated Believe
Whiteboard2: Robot Defense Strategy
Karen stories...lots and lots of Karen stories
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum bum Well I hesitate to say that this will be the best coffee with Scott Adams that you've ever experienced but it's already shaping up that way.
Seriously. I've got my printer going.
Excuse me. Don't go anywhere.
Don't go anywhere.
Coming right back.
My God, there's three pages of notes.
Stay there. Yeah, we got whiteboards.
We got notes. We've got the simultaneous sip.
We've got just about everything that you could ever need to start your morning, right?
Well, today I'm going to tell you how to defend yourself from the coming robot onslaught against your jobs.
Yes, I will. I'll talk to you about the poorly educated, We'll talk about Biden and hydroxychloroquine and all kinds of fun things.
But first, we need the simultaneous sip.
And all you need to do the simultaneous sip is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen, jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better, including the damn pandemic.
It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.
Go! Stock market is up, somebody says.
Let me check that live while we're here.
You know, I was going...
Better check to make sure that's true before I look.
Oh, yeah. Stock market.
Oh, my goodness.
Oh. Oh.
Oh. Oh.
Looking good. So yesterday, I was so close to tweeting, I hope you own stocks.
Because today was almost a guaranteed up day, I think.
Because what happened is, people took off their masks, they went back to something like life, or at least the vacation version of it, the Memorial Day version.
And it felt kind of normal, didn't it?
It felt like we can do this.
It felt like in a few weeks we're going to find out that the spike in infections that we thought in the worst case scenario maybe didn't happen.
Could be because it's warmer.
Could be because we're smarter and we know what to do and what not to do.
But I felt like this weekend was a turning point.
And I felt like the stock market was going to reflect that.
Does it feel like we've made it?
What do you think?
Because wasn't there a point when you said to yourself not long ago, might have been only a few weeks ago, you said to yourself, I'm not sure we're going to make it.
Didn't you say that to yourself?
Come on, you know you did.
You know there was at least some point in the last few weeks where you said, I don't know if this is going to work.
This civilization thing might not make it.
Well, we're back.
We've got a lot of work to do.
A lot of people lost a lot.
A lot of people lost their lives.
We will not forget that.
But I think we turned the corner.
It's all going to be good news from now.
So we're going to hear about therapies.
We're going to hear about vaccines.
We're going to hear about infections going down.
We'll still have some bad news.
But a lot of it's going to be good.
So let me tell you what I'm doing to cause trouble.
I've been Starting today, a little more than normal, I'm retweeting anything that looks positive about hydroxychloroquine, even though I don't believe any of it.
So let me say that again.
I'm retweeting aggressively anything that says anything positive about hydroxychloroquine, but I also don't believe any of it.
Now, it's not that hydroxychloroquine works or doesn't work.
I don't know. What, am I a doctor?
How would I know? What I don't trust is anything on the internet.
So it doesn't matter if it's pro or con.
If it's on the topic of just anything about hydroxychloroquine, I don't really trust it.
So I tweet it to have smarter people tell me what's wrong with it.
And I decided to take a little bit of risk for your benefit.
Maybe my benefit too.
I don't know. I'm not sure how.
I think it's mostly bad for me.
But maybe for your benefit.
And it goes like this. I told you before that having no shame is a superpower.
And that's one of my superpowers.
I can do things that other people wouldn't do just because it would be embarrassing.
So one of the things I can do That I'm not embarrassed to do, but ordinary people would be, is to retweet a sketchy science.
And all of the hydroxychloroquine stuff, in my opinion, is very sketchy science.
It's sketchy when it says it doesn't work.
It's sketchy when it says it does work.
Basically, there's not a single frickin' thing that I believe on this topic.
But by retweeting it, it creates in people's minds the idea that I believe it's all true and I want the world to take this drug.
That is not the case.
It's very much not the case.
But people will think it's the case if I just retweet this stuff.
So I'm retweeting to create a false sense in people's minds that somebody who has a high profile, as I do, thinks that this is good stuff.
Now, if I can attract enough idiots, and I think I can, because you know what we don't have a shortage of?
Idiots! If you can find a strategy in life that requires lots of idiots, well, you've got a strong strategy, because you're not going to run out of idiots, right?
So any strategy that requires a lot of idiots is automatically a robust strategy.
And my strategy is That the idiots should start to come in pretty soon.
I would expect that it won't be long before you'll see a major publication print a story in which they throw me under the bus for promoting hydroxychloroquine, which I'm expressly not doing.
But I know that I'm creating this situation simply by retweeting it.
Now what I'm trying to do is draw attention to it So I can get the best information.
In order to do that, I will embarrass myself in public and be shamed by publications who misinterpret me and make me the target of all their hatred.
So we'll see if this works.
Along those lines, when I retweet this stuff and I'm looking for people to debunk it or possibly confirm it, but I think mostly it's going to be debunking because it's Quote, stuff on the internet and it's almost always wrong.
I'm going to make a follow recommendation for you.
So here's somebody you should follow on Twitter because whenever I tweet something that looks sketchy, I can almost always depend on this one person to come in and tell me why it doesn't make sense.
And I look at it and I go, oh yeah, that makes sense.
I'll give you an example. And then if you have something to write this down, get ready, I'll tell you a new follow.
But I tweeted this morning that the UAE, I'm sorry, not the UAE, yeah, the UAE had a very low rate of deaths from coronavirus.
They had a very low rate of deaths, like very, very, very low, but also they were using hydroxychloroquine.
Now this is an example of something that I'm going to tweet, which I don't think necessarily is telling me something interesting.
I just don't know what's wrong with it.
So I need somebody to tell me.
So the person that I'm going to recommend in a moment, so get ready to write this down.
You really want to follow this account.
It's a really good one. Comes in and says, Confounder.
Demographics. About 89% of the population of the UAE are expats.
And immigrants, close to zero of them will be of risky age.
And I just thought, what?
Why didn't I know that?
I knew there were a lot of expats in the UAE, but I didn't really put together that if you're young enough and strong enough to go to another country just to be a physical worker, You're probably exactly the person who doesn't die from this.
You're probably...
Expats is the wrong word, I think.
The point is that most of them are migrant workers.
Mostly migrant workers.
And I thought that was a really good observation.
So if you were to compare the UAE to any other country, it wouldn't make any sense at all.
Because their population is artificial.
It's a completely artificial population.
So, anyway, if your pencils are ready, here's who you should follow on Twitter.
Andres Backhaus.
B-A-C-K-H-A-U-S. It's probably easier just to Google him, but his Twitter is Andres Shrugged.
Andres spelled A-N-D-R-S. E-A-S. Shrugged.
All one word. Shrugged.
Alright, he's an economics PhD.
Now what have I told you about people who are trained to compare things?
Somebody who has a PhD in economics is literally trained to compare things.
And sure enough, every time he compares things, it looks reasonable to me.
I look at it and say, why didn't anybody else do that?
Why is he the only one who's comparing things right?
Recently, somebody tweeted something that was also a good analysis of another person, and I thought, hey, why does that make sense?
And I checked the profile, and he's some top economist at some big bank.
I thought, oh, okay, he's actually trained To compare things.
And the moment I read his tweet, I could detect it.
I was like, oh, somebody trained to compare things.
He did it right. Sure enough.
All right, so that's enough of that.
I just saw a clip of Joe Biden on The View explaining the Tara Reade stuff and the seven women, blah, blah, blah.
And he said, I'm sorry it happened.
What? I'm sorry it happened.
I'm sorry what happened.
I feel like if you didn't see that, I just retweeted it.
I don't know when he did that interview, because I'd never seen it before.
It looks new-ish, but it can't be new-new.
None of them are wearing masks, and they don't seem to be socially distancing.
So I don't know when that came out.
But you have to watch it.
He is so... He's incredibly incompetent.
I mean, he just sits there like a child who's babbling.
It doesn't make any sense at all.
And we'll talk about that in a moment, more about that.
So I caused a little trouble yesterday just for fun, because sometimes it's just fun to troll.
You all saw the pictures of Biden visiting the cemetery.
He had his mask on and He was carrying a big wreath.
Well, the wreath was a white wreath, and it was this big, round wreath, but it also had a ribbon that kind of crossed the plane of the roundness.
So it looked like a giant letter Q. So I tweeted, why is Biden carrying a giant letter Q? And I just leave it there.
I just leave it there.
Do what you like with it.
But he was carrying a giant letter Q. I point that out because a lot of the Q theory, that there's somebody named Q who's got secrets that are being revealed online, the idea is that we know Q is real because there are so many coincidences that just couldn't be coincidences.
To which I say, do you know how easy it is to find a Q in nature?
A cue is probably the most common accidental thing that could ever happen.
All it takes is a circle and something breaking in the plane that looks like the little thing on a cue.
How often is that going to happen by accident just in life?
And the answer is pretty often.
Pretty often. The wreath is just one obvious example that looks like a giant cue.
But a lot of things do.
So you have to watch out when you're using coincidences to prove your theories.
That's a good example of it.
So Representative Ilhan Omar said she believes Tara Reid, the sexual assault claims against Biden, but she's going to vote for him anyway.
How delicious is it that Representative Ilhan Omar Believes that Joe Biden is a rapist, but she's going to vote for him anyway.
But she softened it a little bit.
She softened it by saying that he wasn't her first choice as a candidate.
She liked Bernie.
But it's alright, I'll vote for him anyway.
Doesn't it? It just basically makes everything that she's ever said just feel more ridiculous.
If it wasn't already ridiculous.
So there's a little foreshadowing coming.
I don't know how long I'm going to be teased by the question of Biden's pick for vice president, because most of you know that in 2018, I made the prediction that Kamala Harris would win the primary and be the candidate.
Now, of course, when she withdrew from the race, most people said, Scott, Scott, Scott, I guess you're wrong.
Ha ha ha, you're so wrong she even withdrew from the race.
And then I doubled down.
Because it's what I do.
If I can't get in enough trouble naturally, I'll double down.
So I doubled down and said, not only...
Will she still get the nomination?
But she's going to do it the hard way, without running for office.
She's going to be...
And I said that she would be picked as vice president, and because of Biden's obvious increasing incompetence, that she would come to become the top of the ticket.
Now, you have to admit, that is the most crazy prediction anybody ever made, because it's so specific.
And that's really specific, isn't it?
It's never happened before.
It's very specific.
And I chose a candidate out of a field of, I don't know, however many.
There were a lot of choices.
So you'd have to admit, if I get this one right, and we don't know yet, I still think it's like a 50-50 chance.
I think there's much more chance you'll pick somebody else than maybe other people are thinking.
Because with the vice presidency, there's always a surprise.
But man, are things shaping up that way, that it's going to be Kamala Harris.
So Liz Peek writes in Fox.
She breaks down the latest trouble with Biden when he made the comment about you ain't black if you don't vote for Joe Biden.
So there's quite a bit of blowback from that.
I guess there was a recent op-ed in the Washington Post.
So there were seven female black So that's one data point that at least Some portion of the African American community,
who are also Democrats, are pushing pretty hard for an African American candidate.
Even Charles Blow from the New York Times, so now you've got the Washington Post, ran an opinion piece, and then the New York Times ran an opinion piece, kind of in the same direction.
And Charles Blow saying that That Biden has misrepresented his relationship with the black community, and basically saying that Biden hasn't been that tremendous to the black community.
So Biden's getting a lot of pushback, and I didn't really expect it.
I have to admit that I was wrong about the extent of this.
What I thought would happen is that it would just be a news story for three days.
The only people who would talk about it would be the people on the right, the Republicans, the conservatives, and the left would just sort of ignore it because they don't think Biden's a racist, so there's nothing to see here.
But I was wrong. Because it turns out I had a gigantic blind spot.
And maybe some of you had it too.
And the blind spot was this, which is how it sounded to the black community in this country.
You can never really get inside anybody else's head.
I always caution you that you can never really understand what anybody else is thinking.
This is a really good example.
If you had told me that Biden's remark Would offend the black Democrats in this country?
I would have said, no.
They know him.
They know he's on their side.
They know he has good intentions.
If he misspoke, it doesn't mean anything.
They're just going to blow it off.
That's what I thought. But here was the blind spot.
Somebody says, I told you so, Scott.
Anybody who told me this is correct.
The blind spot was this.
And it was explained by a few different people in the media, which is that if you are black, the notion that somebody would start distinguishing between who's black...
I hate to use this phrase, but black enough...
Because it sounds offensive just even using the phrase.
But I was not really keyed into that being a big deal, meaning that I didn't connect it with this story.
I, of course, knew that it was a thing.
I knew it was a big deal in other contexts.
But I never would have connected this story to that.
You know, to me, Biden was just making an offhand comment.
He wasn't commenting on that.
He certainly wasn't commenting on On who's black enough.
It was just a comment.
It was just a bad comment.
But sure enough, it seems that the black community is taking this, or at least some portion of it.
I don't know what percentage. Because you never know what percentage.
You always hear the people who are talking in public.
You don't hear everybody. So I don't know what percentage, but I was actually still surprised that the black community turned on Biden at least a little bit because of that comment.
Because apparently that's... That's a little extra...
a little extra...
bothersome.
And I wouldn't have seen that coming at all.
That was completely invisible to me.
So, for those of you who say, Scott, Scott, Scott, why don't you ever admit when you're wrong?
Why can you never admit you're wrong?
And I say all the time, I do it all the time!
I wrote a frickin' book about how wrong I am.
I'm doing it now.
So at least just take a note of it.
Please. Take a note of it.
Because the next time you're mad at me because you say, you never say you're wrong, just remember this one.
There are plenty of other examples.
Alright, here's the other Kamala Harris tidbit.
So Biden has just hired Cesar Chavez's granddaughter to be an aide.
I don't know what kind of aide, but a top aide.
And coincidentally, she happened to be Kamala Harris's aide.
So, of all the people in the world that Joe Biden could pick to have one of his top political campaign aides, the person he picks is one of Kamala Harris' ex-top aides.
It's almost as if one could imagine, just hypothetically, purely speculating here, That Kamala Harris is already running the campaign.
Am I wrong? Because it looks to me like Kamala Harris just put her own pick in a top spot in the campaign.
Do you think that that pick was as likely if he were not going to pick Kamala Harris as his VP? Is it just as likely?
Probably not. I mean, it's possible.
So you can't make any definitive statement about this.
But it feels like all the hints are moving in the same direction.
Have you noticed that? All the little suggestions, all the bias, the tilting, it's all kind of Kamala Harris' direction.
Probably not a coincidence, but we'll find out.
There's a fascinating thread today that I retweeted by a I never know if it's Stephan or Stephen when there's the PH, because everybody pronounces it different.
I'm going to say Stephan McIntyre.
Now, you might know Stephan as a...
He writes about climate science in a skeptical fashion, but don't hold that against him, because this is a different topic.
And you did a long tweet on our intelligence agency's claim That Russia hacked the DNC server and that we know it.
And he goes through all of the information that the government has released in detail and here's the value that he added.
It's kind of hard to go through all that stuff because it's really technical and it's just hard work.
But he did the hard work of looking through all the government's public documents Only to find that there's absolutely no evidence of Russian hacking in any of it.
In other words, the government released what it hoped you would think was solid evidence that they had caught Russia red-handed, and it's document after document of technical things, etc.
But what it doesn't include is any direct evidence that Russia hacked.
And it takes somebody, somebody say, Stephen is Stephen.
Okay, so I'm still not sure there, so I apologize to him if I'm saying his name right.
So it's either Stephen or Stephen McIntyre.
And look for my retweet on that.
I just retweeted it this morning.
And did you know that?
Were you aware that there actually isn't any evidence, at least that our government has told us, there isn't any evidence of Russia hacking?
It's just considered a fact.
Did you also know there's no real evidence that Russia ran Facebook ads that made a difference in the election?
It's reported as they interfered in our election.
And yeah, there's a Russian troll farm that made some ads that looked like a sixth grade project and they spent almost no money on it and nobody saw them.
That happened. But it's simply not true that Russia successfully interfered in our election by running memes.
You just have to look at them to know it's not true.
You don't have to be an expert.
Just look at the ad budget, which was trivial, and then look at the memes and you can just look at them and say, oh, this doesn't make any difference.
So two of the biggest claims from our own intelligence agencies are either false or certainly there's no evidence that we can see.
Think about that.
Which brings me to the poorly educated.
I was trying to make a list of what the poorly educated believe that's not true.
Now, for background, I'm using the phrase poorly educated...
To refer to someone who only watches half of the news, either only the stuff that the mainstream news says, or only the things on the right.
Could be either way. So if you're in a news silo, where you only see what your side is telling you, you are poorly educated about life, and about the news, and about the world.
Now, that doesn't mean you're dumb.
I'm not insulting you.
If you're poorly educated.
We live in a country in which there must be at least, I don't know, a hundred million people in this country who are poorly educated.
I don't have any bad feelings about any of them, because not everybody wants to be poorly educated.
Sometimes these things happen.
So it's not an insult.
It's simply a description.
The people who only listen to CNN and New York Times and MSNBC are poorly educated, exactly as someone who only watched the news on the right and somehow managed to not watch any of the mainstream news, they too would be poorly educated.
But there's a really big difference.
The people on the right almost always are exposed to the news on the left because it's everywhere.
You can't miss it.
And the news on the right Talks about the news on the left.
Usually it's debunking it, but it talks about it.
Oh, somebody says the 17 intelligence agencies.
That's another one. So here are some of the things I put on my list of things that the poorly educated would believe actually happened that didn't happen.
Yeah, I do remember Trump saying he loved the poorly educated.
That's where it comes from. So it comes from Trump using that phrase, and it's, well, you say poorly informed, but really is there a difference?
Is there a difference between being poorly informed and poorly educated?
You know, poorly informed would be slightly more technically accurate, but poorly educated is funnier.
Poorly educated is a lot funnier.
So we're going to go with that. See if it moves the needle.
There was an interesting story on persuasion on the topic of picky kids eating.
And I know this is not politics, but it's on persuasion.
And I thought I'd run this by you.
And so there's some experts saying that, I think this was on CNN's site, that if you have a picky eater...
And you're trying to make your kid who's a picky eater, if you're trying to force them to eat more different foods, that you're probably actually persuading them to be more picky.
And the argument is that every time somebody has a penalty involving food, they want to do less of it.
Now that's true in every domain.
If you give somebody a penalty or a reward for any behavior over time, The penalty ones will make you do less of it.
The rewards will make you do more of an activity.
There's not really many ways to be an exception to that.
That's one of the rules of life that's very dependable.
If you reward something, you're going to get more of it.
So, in this question of the picky eaters, the experts have some suggestions which I don't know if this would work because I've experienced picky eaters in my life, you know, kids, stepkids.
And the idea is that you just provide them with healthy food and then let them do whatever they want.
And now you say to yourself, wait a minute, I've seen a picky eater as a kid.
If I provide them a plate of healthy food, they just won't eat it.
They just won't. So what do you do?
Do you starve your kid?
Well, I guess the technique goes like this.
You give them their healthy food, but you might also have something on it that's mac and cheese, or basically the one thing the kid is going to eat.
Chicken nuggets, mac and cheese, grapes, Cheerios, basically all picky eaters just eat those things.
Cheese. And here's what they found.
This was the part that I found the most interesting.
That you have to expose a kid...
at least 12 times to a new unfamiliar food before the kid will even really consider eating it if they're a picky eater.
And when they talk about exposing the kid to it, they mean literally just putting it on the plate.
Not telling them they have to eat it, not penalizing them, not making them stay at the table, just put it on the plate.
In other words, get them actually just comfortable being around it.
Now you'd say to yourself, How in the world is that going to make a picky eater eat that food?
But you can't underestimate how much of a copying species we are.
So the second part of that is that the adults eat the food.
So let's say you're trying to get your kid to eat broccoli.
Kids actually usually like broccoli, but let's say that's the food.
If you just put the broccoli on their plate and let them ignore it, don't give them a penalty because it's the penalty that makes things worse.
You just let it happen. Then you have your own broccoli and you're sitting at the same table and you're like, mmm, love my broccoli.
Can I have another helping of broccoli?
And you just let it go.
And, you know, it might be 12 times before the kid has his first bite of broccoli.
Maybe you suggest it.
If they don't want it, they don't have it.
But that's the idea. Do you think that would work?
Somebody said you are not a parent.
Yes, I am a parent.
I did raise two stuffed kids and they were both picky eaters.
So believe me, this is a topic I know a lot about from parenting.
So I just put this down here.
I'm not sure that I'm buying the story that this would work, but I think that That there's enough good persuasion thinking in it that is worth reporting.
So the takeaways here is that people are copiers and the kids will eventually copy their parents.
You just can't push it.
And that simply exposing them to it and letting them find their own way, they'll get there.
I don't know. It doesn't match with my experience to assume that the kids would ever get there.
My My experience says that they're just never going to get there.
But, could be wrong.
Alright. Does it seem to you that there are a lot of Karen stories lately?
And I'm trying to figure out if they've always been there, or if there's something happening.
I feel as if all this story is about some kind of a woman of a certain age who's usually a white woman.
Does she have to be a white woman to be a Karen?
And I don't even know how much of an insult it is to call anybody a Karen these days.
Is that forbidden now?
I don't even know if it's bad anymore.
But the idea is that Karen is a hypothetical person who's always complaining to the manager.
And it feels like there's just a lot of that going on now.
Most of you saw the story about the woman who called the police because there was, quote, an African-American man taking pictures of her illegally letting her dog off a leash.
And while she's complaining, she's choking her dog on the leash.
Apparently she lost her dog.
It got taken away from her and her job.
She got fired. Because she actually was on film While this gentleman was filming her, because he'd complained about her dog being off-leash, which was a perfectly legitimate complaint, apparently.
And he was there as a bird watcher.
He was just there to watch birds.
And he complained, and she says, I'm going to call the police and tell them there's an African-American man who's, I don't know, filming me or threatening me or something.
And I'm thinking, she was on camera.
His camera was actually running, quite obviously.
She knew she was being filmed.
And she said to an African-American man, I'm going to call the police and tell them an African-American man is, I forget what she said, filming me or threatening me or something.
And I'm thinking, what was the African-American part of that?
Why was that important to the story?
Why did you need to throw that in there, Karen?
So, of course, that's what got her fired.
And then I see that there's Kara Kara, K-A-R-A, Swisher, writes in the New York Times that Twitter needs to, quote, Twitter must cleanse the Trump stain.
Now, probably Kara did not write that headline.
That's probably the New York Times put a headline on it for her.
But that's what they thought her article was saying.
It's an opinion piece.
That Twitter must cleanse the Trump stain.
Maybe she used that phrase.
I didn't see it. But the idea is that they need to set up some kind of an external group or committee or some kind of a guidance group that would determine, you know, who could say things on Twitter.
And I'm thinking to myself, I don't know if we need a Bureau of Truth.
You know, as soon as you start going in that direction, doesn't everything just go to hell?
I have to admit that I appreciate Jack Dorsey's commitment to letting even bad stuff on Twitter, because if you try to get rid of the bad stuff, there's just no way it's going to go any other direction than getting rid of too much of the good stuff.
And watching somebody complain about who can say what on Twitter, especially the president, is a very Karen moment.
It just doesn't feel like...
It just doesn't feel like we should be setting up a board of truth to monitor the social media networks.
Because I don't know how that could possibly work since we don't agree what truth is.
Anyway, there just seems more of that in the news.
I told you I was going to protect you from the robots.
I have an idea for that.
It's on the back. Alright, here is your robot defense strategy for the future.
Because as you know, the robots are going to take your jobs.
They're taking you jobs, as South Park likes to say.
They're taking you jobs.
Alright. So, here's your strategy to defend yourself from the robot takeover, which is, of course, coming.
And when I say the takeover, I don't necessarily mean they'll be running the government.
Hey, maybe. Maybe.
Who knows? The robots will definitely be taking a lot of jobs.
If you've got a manual labor job, the robots are going to take it.
If you've got even a thinking job, robots are going to take it.
But, maybe, maybe you can hold down a little bit longer If you have what I'll call a creative job.
Now, a creative job in this context doesn't mean you're an artist.
It doesn't mean that you're doing what I do.
It doesn't mean you're writing or making art or creating art like that.
What it means is that you have a talent stack, you've put together a number of different talents, and I think it was James Altucher who came up with this idea that ideas have sex, meaning that if you combine two ideas, they'll often make you think of a new idea.
Robots can't do that.
And I don't know if they'll ever be able to do it, because there's something that robots lack.
They lack a body.
And your body acts as your sensor.
Your body, your actual physical body, tells you if something is a good idea to other humans.
That's the key. I have a better sense of what another human being would like.
Even though I'm wrong lots of times, I have a way better sense than a robot would.
A robot doesn't know what other people are going to like if they've never seen it before.
So I can do this, and this is something a robot can't do.
I can say, hey, I've got some experience in economics, and I've got some experience in photography.
I'm just going to pick two random things.
And I've noticed In the field of economics and the field of photography, there's something that they both do that makes me think of a new idea.
Something that's not in economics and not in photography.
It's sort of a merger of those two ideas and now I have a new idea.
How do I know my new idea is worth pursuing?
Because I can feel it.
That's the suggestion that I make for all creators.
If you're coming up with ideas, and you're cycling through ideas, see how it feels.
Because if people don't feel your idea, first of all, if you don't feel it, nobody else is going to feel it.
So if people don't feel it, they're not going to act on it.
Those are the ones that matter.
Robots don't have bodies, and they're not going to be able to feel a good idea.
So to protect yourself from the robots in the future, get a creative job.
That doesn't mean you're an artist.
You could be still doing cubicle work, but you're creative because you've added a talent stack to a talent stack.
You've added skills to your talent stack until those skills can have sex and create new ideas that a robot never could have come up with.
So this is your special advantage.
So make sure you're building your skill stack, because if you only have one manual labor thing you do, you're going to be replaced.
If you have even a thinking job that's just one domain, all I do is think about, let's say, insurance actuarial risk.
That's all I think about.
The computer's going to do that someday.
Your computer's going to do that.
So, I would also say that any kind of technology, engineering, development job is a creative job.
Because if you do a startup, for example, you're usually combining ideas from different places to come up with your idea.
Alright. Planning is creative.
That's true. Planning is a creative process.
Alright, I'm just looking at your comments here.
Somebody says, Robot Karens will come up.
Somebody says, Send Christina my love and hope she has an awesome day.
Well, I'll send her my love.
Alright. But I'll do that.
Robots are already writing top 40 music.
No, not really.
Not really. I don't believe we've seen a top 10 or a top 40 hit from a computer or an algorithm, so I'd say not really.
Did I do a drawing lesson?
I have not done a drawing lesson, but I will.
Who fixes the robots if they break?
Other robots. Other robots could fix robots that break if they're just fixing an existing model.
What other robots might not be able to do is invent a better robot.