Episode 1242 Scott Adams: Fwee-dom, Election Allegations Debunked, Hypnosis Versus Brainwashing
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Massive caravans under Biden administration
Backwards thinking
Recounts are NOT audits
Fake news and the under-informed public
Eric Hunley, brainwashing versus hypnosis
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
But if you'd like to enjoy this episode of Coffee with Scott Adams, which, remind me, is it the best part of the day?
That's right. Yeah, it is.
Best part of the day. And all you need to maximize it is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now.
For the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine day of the day, the thing makes everything better.
The simultaneous sip happens now.
Go! That's good.
Well, let me tell you what's going on here.
Christine and I decided that, you know, I'd been working hard, been doing two or three jobs here every day since the pandemic locked up.
And I thought, dammit, I've got to get something like a little vacation, maybe three days out of town.
So what we decided to do was we would go to the snow country, decided to go to Utah, specifically Park City.
Now, Park City is a pretty cool place in the winter.
It's just a beautiful place, and the restaurants, and you can walk around.
So we found a place, we found a resort that was in Park City.
Perfect location for the winter.
And we decided that the things we like would be a nice view, you know, big vista view and a summer suite.
You know, I don't have a lot of luxury wants in my life, but once or twice a year I like to go to a place that's way more expensive and nice than I would normally want to go to.
Just because I like the view, Maybe if it's a winter place, I like the fireplace, the snow, the walking.
Great idea, right?
So things didn't go exactly, exactly as I planned.
So we got here yesterday and there's not much snow.
So it's a snow destination without all the snow, but that's okay because I still like Sitting by the fireplace with Christina and looking at the view.
One of the main things we look for is 24-hour room service.
Because I might start work at 4 a.m., Christina likes to eat dinner sometimes at midnight, get a snack.
So it's one of our main things, 24-hour.
So we found a place that was in Park City.
They told us they have 24-hour room service.
We got it in writing, so we know.
Here's what happened. Let me show you my view.
So remember, this is a very expensive luxury suite.
So I'm not going to tell you the name of the resort because I don't think it's important.
But here's my view.
Can you see that? It's kind of lovely, isn't it?
Yeah, that's the view at night.
Because there are no lights or any kind of illumination outside the window.
So from 4 p.m.
to just about 20 minutes ago, that was the entire view.
A little black window.
Now, you're saying to yourself, oh, of course, everybody, you know, if it's nighttime, of course there's not going to be a view.
So I'll show you the view that I paid an enormous amount of money for.
Here it is. It's a view.
Can you see it? It's the side of a hellscape winter mountain with nothing else but like dead brush.
There's my view. So we didn't get the snow we wanted, but you know, I can put up with some inconveniences, right?
We didn't get the view we wanted.
And really the main reason I would go to a place like this is for the view.
But at least we get, you know, the fireplace.
Well, when I say we got a fireplace, I don't mean an actual thing that had fire inside a building.
It was more like a...
It's an ornamental decoration in the side of a wall that if you saw the photos on the website, it looked like a fireplace, but it doesn't produce any fire or warmth or anything like that.
It's just sort of a decoration.
So instead of watching the beautiful snow and my wonderful vista while sitting by the fireplace, I'm looking at a postage stamp of a hellscape while sitting next to a thing that looks like a fireplace in the photo But isn't.
Now that's okay, because I'm not the kind of guy who complains.
Because as long as we've got each other and 24-hour room service, we'll make something out of it, right?
Well, they don't have 24-hour room service, turns out.
They have room service that ends at 9.30 at night, which is approximately two hours before Christina gets hungry.
Not ideal. So we didn't get the food we wanted, the view we wanted, the fireplace.
And there's not much in the way of snow in snow country, but at least we're in Park City.
And if you know about Park City, it's a pretty cool place.
Now, when I say we're in Park City, I mean that the website where we found this resort, and this is a very famous high-end resort, said it's in Park City.
So we went there, And what they meant, I guess we should have asked more questions.
When they say it's in Park City, what they mean technically is 19 miles from Park City in a town I've never heard of.
So my idea of walking outside and walking through the beautiful Park City, it's harder than it would be because I'd have to walk 19 miles to begin my walk in Park City.
So we're checking out in a few hours.
So my three-day vacation, probably the only time I'll get out of town in, I don't know, maybe in six months or nine months.
Basically, my vacation is flying here, wearing a mask all day, not being able to breathe, getting here, looking at a postage stamp of a dark window, And then flying home.
So that's my vacation.
But on the good side, it's also really expensive.
So you got that.
All right, enough about me.
That's not why you came here. I just wanted you to feel the pain of being me for a moment.
Really, I shouldn't complain.
I mean, the fact that I could even get out of my house is...
Something I shouldn't complain about.
Alright, let's talk about Georgia. I guess the vote's happening in Georgia.
Here's my prediction.
If it's true that the presidential race was stolen, and I would say that's not proven, certainly not proven, but lots of allegations.
If the national election was stolen, then certainly the Senate elections will be stolen.
So if you see that Democrats win both seats, I feel like I'd have a lot of questions.
So I don't think you can make a prediction about the outcome the way you normally would, where you'd say, hmm, who do I think gets the most votes?
Because I don't think this one is about votes.
If we've learned anything, the will of the people has almost nothing to do with an election.
The things that matter are what rule changes happened, what lawyers did what, which courts said what, Who got out the vote?
Whose advertisement was the most cleverly misleading?
So it's basically a whole bunch of tricks and legal stuff and lying and manipulation and fake news.
And collectively, all of that mischief is who determines who's president and who determines who's senator.
So the idea that...
Somebody said, how's the coffee here?
Not good. At least it's consistent.
And how would I know? I haven't been able to order it, so I've been using the little espresso thing in the room.
Anyway, so we'll see what happens in Georgia.
If it's two Democrats that win, I've got questions.
Did you hear about that big healthcare consortium?
It was a consortium Where they were trying to figure out how to make healthcare costs lower, and it was Amazon and Berkshire Hathaway and J.P. Morgan got together.
Well, they just disbanded it.
So that whole thing that I thought had great potential, it's like, wow!
If these three entities, Amazon, Berkshire, and J.P. Morgan, if the three of those companies can't figure out how to penetrate this Healthcare cost problem and make us a better system.
I mean, if they can't do it, I don't think it can be done.
So they disbanded.
Turns out it can't be done.
Turns out it can't be done.
And the reason that they gave is that although they created a consortium in the most perfect Dilbert world, they decided not to work together after they created the consortium.
So all three of them Just went off and did their own thing.
And then they compared and they said, well, we're doing this, we're doing that.
Not really the same things.
And so they just said, why are we a consortium?
We're not even, like, coordinating.
So they just said, ah, screw it.
Now, here's the funny part about it.
What is the single biggest problem with fixing health care?
Well, you might say to yourself, it's, you know...
Money and bad Congress and all that.
But I would say the base problem is it's complicated.
That's the biggest problem.
As soon as you start digging into it, it's just turtles all the way down and endless complication.
So no matter how well-meaning you are and no matter how qualified you are, it's just impenetrable.
It's just too big, too complicated.
So even if you could figure out what to do, how would you ever communicate it?
Imagine you were the smartest person in the world and you did figure out how to fix health care.
Could you explain it to anybody?
No, because it'd be too complicated.
Nobody would be able to understand it, much less vote on it, much less fix it.
So in order to fix this thing, which had a base problem of complexity, I should have seen this coming.
Their solution to all this complexity Was to create an entity of three big corporations, which are a little complicated individually, on top of having to work together, which is a little complicated on top of a complication, as a way to solve a complicated situation.
Can you imagine the meetings?
The meetings would have to be eight hours long, Just to get to the first item on the list.
Because of all the background context, here's what you need to know, who's doing what, it's just impenetrable.
So I'm not surprised that using complexity to try to simplify something didn't work.
It could be a good Dilbert comic in that.
Maybe there will. There might be.
All right, here's the most interesting question of a Biden potential presidency.
What happens, and I've asked this before, but it's endlessly fascinating to me, because there's some things you can predict and some things that just defy prediction.
So what's going to happen with a Biden presidency, which has, as it's one of its most core basic components, one of the strongest parts of what a Biden view of the world is, Is letting immigrants in and not putting kids in cages and being as open a country as we can to immigration.
Now, I think most people agree with the general concept that immigration is good if you do it the right way.
And nothing is good if you do it the wrong way.
Are we all on the same page with that?
If you do immigration in a good way, it's good.
If you do it all wrong, not so good.
So it's not immigration is good or bad, it's just how you do it.
And so what's going to happen when the caravans, who naturally will see weakness in Biden, and they'll say, he's going to let us in.
What happens when all the caravans show up?
Now, it's already started, right?
And you're seeing lots of them bunching at the border, and border security is doing what it can, but it's still a presidency of Trump, right?
So today, it still trumps people doing Trump stuff to keep the borders secure.
But what happens on day one of Biden?
What does day one look like?
Wouldn't every caravan in the world say, well, I don't think we'll ever have a better time?
So we should see massive caravans coming over as soon as the weather and the inauguration have happened.
The weather's got to be good enough, I guess.
I would imagine the winter is a good time to do it.
So maybe it's a perfect time to do it.
I don't know. But how do you see this going?
Let's say there are two possibilities that I can see.
One is that immigration grows and grows and grows and expands Because nothing's stopping it.
And it just gets out of control in one year.
And millions of people walk across the border.
That's one way it could go.
And that would be at least consistent with what Biden and the Democrats have been saying.
That you can't keep people out just because you're being mean.
If they have a reason to want to be here, that's good enough.
You know, I'm exaggerating a little bit, but that would be the...
The Democrat, compared to the Republican system, is...
You know, difference in permissibility.
So what happens if Biden goes the other way and says, hey, I'm no super progressive.
We've got to have some border security, because he's said things like that.
What happens if he tries to stop it?
How can he stop it?
Without force, or without building a border wall?
What in the world is going to happen?
Because one of the things that could happen is the complete destruction of the Democratic Party.
Let me put it into a formula.
Is it not true?
Wouldn't you say this is true?
There is a number of immigrants who might come across the border in a Biden administration.
Some number would be okay, meaning that Biden would still be able to explain it away even if it was big and people didn't like it and they were complaining.
That'd still be something he could handle.
People are unhappy about lots of things.
But there is a theoretical number of immigrants that makes the Democratic Party disappear.
Now, not in the sense that the people coming across wouldn't vote Democrat, but what would be the point of the party if they just opened the border?
Could they ever get elected again?
So, let me put it down to this.
There is some number of immigrants Which is not up to us if we're not tightly controlling the border.
It's up to the immigrants how many come.
There is some number that will make voting Democrat ridiculous.
Because at some number it destroys the country.
At some smaller number it helps the country.
Does everybody agree with that, by the way?
Is there anybody who would argue with the general statement That there's some amount of immigration done right that's absolutely good for the country, I would say essential.
It's beyond good.
Immigration is essential.
I don't think you can work around that if you want a good country.
But there's some number that would be too much.
Does anybody disagree with that?
That there's some number that would be too much?
Are we going to hit it?
The too much?
And then what happens? We'll find out.
All right. There's a big story that's just sort of a fun story about Kamala Harris.
And the story goes that she allegedly plagiarized a story that Martin Luther King told in a Playboy interview in the 60s.
And the version that I guess Martin Luther King told was about some toddler kind of kid being asked why, I think it was a she, Was marching in a freedom thing when it's just a little kid who doesn't know what they're doing, and the little kid said something like, freedom. Without knowing even how to pronounce the word, the story was that she knew she needed it.
The freedom is so basic that even a child knows they need it before they can even pronounce the word.
Pretty good story. And then I guess Kamala Harris's version is that she was the girl, and she was in a march, and she was asked, Why are you there?
And she said, not feed him, but fweet him.
And then she completed the story the same way.
She couldn't say the word, but she already knew it was essential.
Now, would you say that was plagiarism?
Maybe. Here's my best guess, since we'll never know exactly.
We'll never know if she read it and said, yeah, I think I'll just use that.
Here's my guess. My guess is she read it once and then formed a false memory in which she actually believed she said it.
So there may be three different explanations.
One is she knew it was plagiarized and just lied.
I don't think that's very likely, actually, because it would just, I don't know, there wouldn't be enough benefit for the story if you knew you stole it.
It just wouldn't be enough benefit-cost ratio, so it'd be a dumb thing to do.
And it could be that it was true, right?
Can you rule out the possibility that it actually happened?
No. You actually can't rule out that possibility.
But it sounds a little too on the nose, right?
Could happen. So I'd go with false memory.
And one of the things that people don't realize, the general public, What percentage of your memories are false?
Let me ask you this.
How many of your memories from, let's say, age, I'll give you an age, from age 20 and younger, so however old you are now, if you're over 20, think about every memory you had from age 20 to your first memory.
What percentage of those would you say are actual, relatively accurate memories, And what percentage of them are some kind of weird mash-up of fake memories?
What's your guess?
Would you say 10% fake memories and 90% true?
I don't know if anybody knows the answer to that.
My personal view is informed by my hypnosis background, which is that it's closer to more than 50%.
And when I say that more than 50% are false memories, I don't mean that you didn't have that birthday and you didn't get that pony, you know, some of those things.
So the basics might be right, but a whole bunch of the stuff about the context and the timing and who was actually there and what you said or who said what to whom, all of that's fake.
So something like 90% of your memories are artificial.
Things that literally didn't happen that you remember as if they did happen.
Like I said, the big stuff did happen.
You know, you really had a little brother, you really had a family, you know, that stuff.
So that's what I think. Probably a false memory.
Not much of a story except whedom is a funny word.
It makes a good meme. I'm seeing a lot of backwards thinking in the news.
Here's what backwards thinking is.
Forward thinking goes like this.
I've got some data, I use my sense of reason to interpret the data, and then I come to a conclusion.
That's forward thinking.
Backwards thinking is, you start with a conclusion, and then you figure out what your rationalization was to get there.
And then you cherry-pick the data to fit your rationalization.
So that's backwards thinking.
The average person can't tell the difference between forward thinking and backwards thinking.
That's what you learn when you learn hypnosis.
First thing you learn, basically, is that the average person doesn't know when they're thinking forwards or backwards.
Think about how big a problem that is.
The average person can't tell.
I'm looking at articles that, you know, there's a George Will article criticizing Ted Cruz and Republicans for challenging the election.
Now, The people who are doing this, and I won't pick on George Will in particular, but anybody who's saying that Ted Cruz is violating his oath of office to serve the people, or that he's assaulting the Constitution by challenging this, etc., keep in mind the only thing he asks for is a 10-day audit, which is quite reasonable to ask for.
No matter what they find, you would agree that we'd like to be more confident in the outcome.
So Ted Cruz is asking this completely reasonable thing.
Can you look at the data and then look at the data and use the reasoning and come to a conclusion?
George will, and others, write articles and criticize them with backwards thinking.
Now what Ted Cruz is doing is forward thinking.
He says we don't have enough data.
We'd like you to do an audit and then we'll have data.
Then we'll assign reason and then we'll have conclusions.
His critics say, we already know it was a fair election.
They start with the conclusion.
We know it was fair.
So, therefore, you must be crazy, that's the rationalization, or you must be attacking the Constitution, or you must be some kind of a cult member for the president, or you're dumb.
Those are the rationalizations, thinking backwards.
And then you go back to the cherry-picked data.
Now, the cherry-picked data is If there are, let's say, 12 different accusations of election fraud, you pick six of them that definitely were not real, and you just talk about them.
So that's backwards thinking, the complete cycle.
And you can see the difference, right?
Now, how many people would read an article by George Will and realize that it was literally backwards thinking?
Started with the conclusion and worked backwards through the rationalization all the way to the cherry-picked data.
Not many people. I would bet not more than, I don't know, 5 out of 100 would know that they had seen backwards thinking.
They would imagine they saw forward thinking.
They wouldn't know the difference. And that's scary, if you think about it.
Speaking of that, we'll get more about that in a moment.
So the Wall Street Journal says that the New York Stock Exchange decided, after deciding to delist a number of Chinese telecom companies because they're too associated with The Chinese Communist Party, and therefore the military, and because the telecom equipment can be used for spying, among other reasons, they want to delist them, but the real reason for delisting is that they don't follow the same reporting requirements as other companies.
So, that decision has been reversed, according to the Wall Street Journal.
And that now they're not going to be delisted after they got together and talked about it.
Now, I would say the Wall Street Journal may be not reporting the news exactly the way that the facts would suggest.
Because when I read the actual article, it didn't sound to me like the way to describe it was that they had, how'd they say it, basically reversed their decisions.
It sounds like what they're doing is still thinking about it, and they just delayed the decision.
So I think that we don't know what the decision will be.
It looked like they just said, wait a minute, we talked to some people.
We have to hold off until we know a little bit more.
So I don't know that it was reversed.
It might be just thinking about it, because I think they probably want to do it.
All right, here's everything that's wrong with the news.
And this applies to every topic in the news, in politics anyway, probably science as well.
And it goes like this. So the New York Times has a story about a top election official in Georgia who systematically debunked...
That's their own phrase.
So from the New York Times, they say that Gabriel Sterling, a top election official in Georgia, systematically debunked President Trump's false claims...
of voter fraud in a news conference.
So President Trump on that phone call that got leaked, the audio that many of you heard, he was talking to the officials at Georgia and he was telling them all of the allegations that he was aware of, or at least some of them, of election fraud.
And he listed some specifics.
Now the New York Times says that this official from Georgia held the news conference and Systematically debunked what the president alleged.
So we're done, right?
Is there anything else to say?
The president made some claims.
The official who's closest to the data gave a news conference, and one by one, he debunked the claims, according to the New York Times.
So that's the news, and now you're informed, right?
Well, there's one thing that the New York Times did not include.
The response to the debunks.
Because do you think that when the debunking happened that the debunker listed everything that the president said?
Or do you think maybe he debunked the ones that are easy to debunk and just maybe didn't mention the others?
Do you think that could have happened?
Did the New York Times report That when he debunked them, he debunked everything that the president said.
I don't believe that they said everything.
I believe they listed the things he debunked.
But wouldn't you want the story to say, and that is everything that the president alleged?
Because I don't know if it was.
I feel like they might have cherry-picked.
See the pattern yet?
Start with a conclusion.
Work backwards to the rationalization.
And then the last step of backwards thinking, you cherry-pick the data.
So you pick the ones that you can debunk.
Now, I told you before this that I heard the president's allegations, and even I knew that the ones I heard were either mostly or all already falsified.
So I didn't think they were necessarily real, but I also think that there are some strong claims still out there, and this is where I think the president is underserved by his advisers.
I feel like people are just afraid to tell them the truth.
So if you're listening, Mr.
President, would you just insist that your advisors tell you what these allegations, you know, tell you that they've been debunked?
Or at least tell you that they've been addressed so you know what the other argument is.
That doesn't mean debunked. And that's actually my next point.
What do you know in any topic if the following things happened?
Somebody makes a claim, And somebody else says, this is my debunk of your claim.
And that's it.
You're done. And the two people never talk or interact.
There's a claim and then there's the debunking claim.
What have you learned?
Exactly nothing. No information you have there.
Because if all you have is the claim and the counterclaim, you don't have anything.
You really have literally nothing.
But your brain doesn't think so.
Your brain says, well, that's a lot.
Because you know what your brain does?
Your brain says if you like the claim, the debunking is crazy.
If you didn't like the claim, that debunking sounds pretty, pretty solid, doesn't it?
Pretty good. So when you hear somebody debunk, and then that's it, there's no interplay and checking on people's assumptions and making sure you're talking about the same thing, you are seeing fake news.
So when the New York Times, your paper of record, tells you that the claims have been, quote, their actual language, systematically debunked, that is not news.
Here's what news would have looked like.
Systematically addressed.
Systematically responded to.
Right? Now wouldn't you say that would be news?
It's news that the president made a claim, and here are the claims.
And it would be news that somebody who is close to the data addressed some of them.
I don't know if it was all of them.
Was it all of them?
I don't think so.
And some of them were addressed by just saying, that didn't happen.
Would you call that a debunk?
Let me debunk the claim that Joe Biden was elected president.
Watch me do it. I'm gonna do it with the same journalistic integrity as the New York Times and the same authority as the officials in Georgia.
Here's my debunk.
Didn't happen. Didn't happen.
Are we good now?
Didn't happen. That's it.
Now that's not news that somebody just says something didn't happen.
News would be, I made a claim.
Somebody said it didn't happen.
The person who made the claim says, here's why I said it happened.
And they talk about the evidence.
It's good or it's bad.
You talk about the context.
You make sure you're on the same page.
Are you really talking about the same thing?
Well, then that would be news.
And I would like to hear that.
But here's a claim and here's the debunk.
That's propaganda. Let me say that again.
Anytime you see in the news, and it doesn't matter if it's left-leaning news or right-leaning news, if you see it's just a claim and a debunk, that's propaganda.
Every time. It's just propaganda.
News would be more of a conversation.
All right. So here are some of the debunks they offered and the ones that I'll agree with.
You remember the famous video of the worker in Georgia, I forget which county, And the video seemed to show that they were sending people away, and then they took out the secret hidden ballots from under the table that were in regular suitcases.
Pretty sketchy, huh? Regular suitcases?
Why would you put a ballot in a regular suitcase?
But of course, nothing like that happened.
So when I watched the video, and it's the same video you all watched, We watched the same video.
Most of you said, there it is.
It's right there. There's the fraud.
You can see it with your own eyes.
And I watched the same video and said, nope.
I don't see any of it.
Absolutely none of it.
I see nothing there that even makes me a little suspicious.
Here was the explanation, the official explanation, that the workers decided to quit counting for the night And they had all decided to quit.
But when the news came down to the state that they were going to quit counting, the state said, you can't quit counting.
Go back to work, because these need to be counted.
Don't go home. So the people who thought they were quitting counting had already sent home the people who didn't need to do anything while the rest of them were cleaning up.
And then when everybody else was gone, the news comes in, oh, you've got to keep counting.
I know there were no observers.
I'm telling you how there were no observers.
That all of the people thought that they were going to all go home.
But before they all went home, the call came in to keep counting.
So the observers had gone home.
The rest of them said, oh crap, we thought we were going home.
But now we're going to have to take out those ballots that we had stored safely in official ballot boxes with a tape over it, so you know whether it's been opened.
And they put them under the tables, so, you know, probably part of the process.
And they took them out, and they were not regular suitcases.
They were official ballot things that just happened to be on wheelies for that very thing.
Hold on. You're lying, somebody says.
You claimed you said...
Hold on. The official story you believed was that the shredders left and the media followed.
That the shredders left and the media followed.
I'm saying the same thing. I'm saying that a whole bunch of people left because they thought that their role there was done.
Is that different? That the people were told to leave and then they did?
The news people thought that they were done, so they left.
I think that's the same as what I said.
Somebody's accusing me of lying.
There was something about a busted pipe that was just maybe a toilet overflowed that really happened, but it didn't have much of an impact on the counting.
They just delayed for a little while.
So here's the thing.
The state has an explanation, and they say that they reviewed the tape from beginning to end, and there wasn't anything on there that wasn't exactly what they know is legitimate.
Except that, by accident, when they thought they were all going to go home, the observers and the press left and they didn't call them back.
You know, they'd already gone home.
So, should those votes be counted if they were not observed?
I think you could make that argument.
I think that would be a strong argument, actually.
But, that was the explanation given.
And what I saw on the video didn't look like anything, except people just working.
Here's what else they said.
There was no triple counting by the reprocessing.
If there had been, they would have picked it up in the recount.
And no problem with these so-called pristine ballots.
You know, the ballots are usually folded when they're mailed, but apparently somebody cited a lot of ballots that didn't have any fold in them, which would suggest they were fake.
But apparently there are legitimate reasons why there are unfolded ballots.
You don't need to know the details, but But the official people say, no, there are both folded ones and unfolded ones.
The unfolded ones are because military blah, blah, blah is the wrong size.
They have to transfer it onto something else.
It doesn't matter the details, but there are unfolded ballots that are normal.
How about the shredders?
So there's a report that ballots were being shredded.
But that was just not true.
There was shredding, but it was, I guess, just the envelopes or something that doesn't matter.
So they claim that was false.
There's claims about lots of people using the same address.
Why is that a problem?
I'm not even sure why that's a problem.
Now, the implication is that lots of people at the same address is a smoking gun for fake voters.
But apparently, most of them are, let's say there's a big apartment building, And so they just have the same address as just the apartments.
Or there are cases where I think homeless people would use some homeless facility or some kind of place as a common address because they're homeless.
Now, I don't have a problem with a homeless person using a fake address for their address, even if the law says they can't.
In my opinion, that would be one thing I wouldn't want the court to even look at.
Why can't a homeless person vote?
Why do you need an address?
Like, how is that fair to a homeless person?
They should be able to just use any address and vote.
As long as they're real people, real citizens, why not?
So, here's my point.
I'm not saying that the explanations I'm giving you are accurate.
I'm saying that we have a situation, there were claims, There are counterclaims.
I don't know if they addressed all the claims.
That's not the problem.
But we can't tell which one is true.
I would say in these cases the debunks or alleged debunks sound stronger.
But there are some strong claims out there.
The statistical claims are very strong.
So the statistical claims that say the odds of this or that happening are so remote that fraud had to have happened.
But the problem is, if you're the state, and you're in charge of the election, and somebody comes to you with a statistical argument, what do you do about it?
You're in charge of the election, and somebody says, these statistics show that there was mischief.
Well, you can do a recount, but what if the recount matches the original count?
Because I think that actually happened, right?
At least a recount in some places.
So if it matches...
And you're in charge of the election, what the hell else are you going to do?
So I think the problem with these statistical arguments are that it might be very persuasive to you and it might be persuasive to me, but what can the people in charge of the election do about that?
You can't really throw out the election because a statistician said it looked unlikely.
Then you have the claim from Jovan Hutton Pulitzer.
He's the technical guy that I talked about and then people couldn't find the link to it.
So I've tweeted him again today.
You'll find him in my Twitter feed if you want to find the technical person who says that you can get into the voting systems.
There are a number of different devices for, I guess, counting and voting and stuff.
So it's not like there's one machine.
It's like a Connected machines.
And he said that he can get into them and the Wi-Fi is open.
The official state response is that it's not.
So what do you know?
So what is the news? So there's a claim by a technical person that you can get into them and that he did.
That he did! And he actually showed you a screen print where he can show, you know, the address, the Wi-Fi, Was it the, I don't know what you call it, the Wi-Fi long code that shows he had access to it?
I mean, I'm not technical enough that I would know if that proved anything.
But certainly he has something he's willing to show everybody.
None of it's secret. So he's made a claim and he says, I can show you that you can get into those systems and change votes.
Here's my question. Would that show up in a recount?
I guess I have a general question, which is, How many claims of fraud of the various flavors of claims, how many of them would be detected by a recount versus would they just be counting ballots that weren't legitimate and just counting it a second time?
Does a recount capture only some kinds of fraud or does it capture everything that could be captured?
I don't know. I would think it wouldn't capture all of them, would it?
Because if you read the news, it's almost as if when you have a recount, we're supposed to believe that all fraud has been eliminated as a possibility.
Does that not feel like what the news is telling you?
That if a recount that is good, that matches or close enough to the original vote, that you can say, oh, we did a recount, so there you go.
But a recount is not exactly an audit, is it?
I'm seeing that in the comments, right?
An audit would be more comprehensive.
I would think an audit would get all the way into the code of the voting machines and how they're networked and all that stuff.
But let's say, here's the part I've got this black hole of lack of knowledge.
Suppose somebody hacked into the voting machines and changed the vote.
Would a recount discover that?
Because does, and here's my question, when you vote on a voting machine, does it create a paper ballot?
Or does it just go digitally all the way to the final database?
Because if it goes digitally to the final database, then what good is counting ballots?
That's just the mail-ins, right?
So I feel like when anybody says that things have been debunked, I don't know that they've even looked into it.
So the first trick of the fake news is if there are 12 claims, the claimants have made a gigantic mistake.
Because you know if they make 12 claims, You're going to have at least six that aren't true.
So what are the people on the other side going to say?
Well, they're not going to address the six strong claims.
They don't have to. Because they get to say what they say and then walk away.
It's a press conference.
There's no other expert at the press conference.
So they just get to say what they say and walk away.
Debunk six out of the twelve and we're done.
So if you come with twelve claims and six of them are weak, you've done a really bad job.
The president Has done a really bad job of persuasion, really bad, on the election fraud stuff, because he's going with a laundry list filled with known, pretty much debunked stuff, even that I would say is reasonably, certainly debunked.
Now, does it matter how many things on the list are debunked?
Would that tell you that the 12th thing is not true?
Nope. No correlation.
There could be a hundred things debunked.
Doesn't mean 101 is also not true.
There's no correlation.
I suppose there could be, but hypothetically there could not be.
So, yeah, recount is not an audit.
So the fake news, I believe, is creating a situation in which the under-informed consumer, which is most consumers, We'll believe that the vote was audited slash recounted, which I don't believe would be a true statement.
There have been some recounts in some places, certainly not audited.
And that all of the claims of fraud have been debunked, and that's just not true.
Here's a specific claim from this Jovan Hutton Pulitzer.
And I haven't seen any debunk of that of you.
The Georgia guy who talked about it, he didn't mention it.
So President Trump was saying on his recorded phone call that he wasn't even talking about the Dominion and software stuff because he thought the ballot stuff was strong enough, but maybe not.
So we'll see. All right.
Here's a micro-lesson.
So I'm going to start a micro lesson and I'll probably ask my assistant to cut this piece out and put it on the Locals platform.
So if you'd like to see my micro lessons on everything from persuasion to improving your life to understanding reality better and all that, that's on the Locals.com subscription platform.
So sometimes when I do a longer Periscope but there's a lesson embedded in it, I'll just pick out the lesson So that you can just see those separately on Locals.
Here's a micro lesson on hypnosis.
Not how to do hypnosis, but a specific question that people have been asking me.
And the question is this.
Can you use hypnosis to get somebody to do something that they don't want to do?
Now, when I interviewed Nikki Klein, who was involved with the NXIVM organization, which the news calls a cult, but that's an opinion, not an objective statement.
When I was talking to her, I said during the interview that, in my opinion, you cannot hypnotize people to do things that they don't want to do, meaning that are deeply against their ethical or moral or self-interest.
And a lot of people disagreed.
And there was a gentleman, Eric Hundley, H-U-N-L-E-Y, if you want to Google him, he's got a YouTube channel, in which he brings up this point He talks about the different opinions from a couple of other professional hypnotists who say the opposite.
They say, yeah, you know, under the right circumstances, you can hypnotize people to do pretty much anything.
Now, why is it that I say you can't, and two other professional hypnotists, you know, even more qualified than me, because they do it professionally, why would they say you can But I say you can't.
Well, the difference is more to do with definitions than with disagreeing about the facts.
If you dug into each of the individual facts that the other two hypnotists claim to be true, I will also agree they're true.
But we're only differing on definition, and here's the problem.
When you tell me, can you make somebody do something they don't want to do with hypnosis, I have limited my definition of hypnosis To a subject and a hypnotist who are trying to do the same thing.
In other words, the subject wants to, let's say, conquer a fear, and the hypnotist wants to help them do that.
That's your normal subject-hypnotist situation.
Now, under that situation, by definition, the hypnotist is only doing things That the person wants.
They want to get over their fear.
So when I call it hypnosis, I mean a willing situation in which the subject and the hypnotist are going for the same objective.
So it's more of a definition thing.
Now, could the hypnotist plant unwanted suggestions and get somebody to do something that they didn't want to do?
Yes, they could.
Could somebody who's not a hypnotist Use the same tools of persuasion and guess somebody to do something that they really didn't want to do.
And the answer is yes.
In fact, you see that happen every single day.
That would be called, let's say, pre-suasion.
Like you prime somebody and then they think they made up their own mind, but they don't know they were primed.
That's a thing. It's a book.
Pre-suasion. How about the written by Cialdini?
Cialdini also wrote Influence before he wrote Pre-Suasion.
Influence is exactly a book about how people are influenced and don't know that they didn't make up their own mind.
So you can show that people think they're making up their own mind, but they're actually just influenced.
So is that somebody making somebody do something they didn't want to do?
How about advertising?
How about propaganda? How about the fake news?
How about selling? How about marketing?
How about negotiating? Every one of those things gets you to do something you didn't want to do.
So if you ask me, can you make somebody do something that they didn't want to do with hypnosis, I say, how about just get rid of the word hypnosis?
Can you get people to do things they didn't want to do by talking to them?
Or, you know, exposing them to, you know, stimulation?
The answer is, yeah. All of these things do it.
Advertising does it, marketing, negotiating, all of them.
Let me make it even simpler.
Let's say you planned to get some work done today, and you were going to work hard, and today was going to be a real good work day.
And your best friend calls you and says, hey, it's a great day, do you want to golf?
And you say, no, I had today, today was going to be work.
I'm not going to golf, I'm going to work.
And then your friend is like, it's not going to be this good every day, you know, and you could work tomorrow and that work will still be there.
And by the way, you promised me that you would golf with me the next time it was a good day.
And then finally you say, all right, let's just go golf.
So is that an example of you being hypnotized to go golf instead of work?
And the answer is yes. Yes, it is.
That is an example of you being hypnotized, but you wouldn't call it that.
You simply used a tool of hypnosis, which is directly asking for something, maybe comparing it to something else, using the concept of shortage.
It's like, ah, there won't be many great days.
Reciprocity. I did this favor for you.
Why don't you golf with me?
You can imagine a whole bunch of techniques of hypnosis But they're just a conversation.
It's just you and your friend talking.
Would you ever say that your friend forced you to do something you didn't want to do?
Or would you say, no, I did what I want to do.
I simply changed my mind about what it was I wanted to do.
That's probably how you would filter it.
You'd say, no, I did what I want to do.
I just changed my mind about what I wanted to do.
Or did you?
Because you wouldn't have changed your mind without that friend saying and doing the right things.
That friend hypnotized you against your will.
Because your will was not to go golfing, and you did.
So, this opens up an interesting question about free will.
I would say that as a person who does not believe that free will is a real thing, it's just an imaginary concept, And that we are all just subject to physics, and whatever inputs are happening in the chemistry of my brain, it's only going to go one way, because physics doesn't have options, I mean, in the sense that matters to this conversation.
So, if my brain is going to do what my brain does, and it gets one set of inputs that change what I want, would you say that I've done what I didn't want?
Or would you just say, I changed what I wanted?
So it looks as if I am disagreeing with those other hypnotists.
Not really.
And here's one difference.
If you ask me, could you get people to do something that they don't want to do, I might shade my answer so that you don't think you can.
And a little of that is being ethical.
Because I don't want to tell you what you really could do.
Because you might go do it.
And it might not be for the betterment of the world.
So I'm not sure that it would be healthy for the world for a hypnotist to say, oh yeah, you could get people to do things they don't want to do.
It's true, but you don't need any hypnosis to do that.
You just need persuasion.
And that doesn't require a trance or You know, you're getting sleepy or any of that.
So, there's my answer.
If you don't believe in free will, the question is useless anyway.
And if you believe that all forms of persuasion can get people to change their mind about what they want...
Dennis asked this question.
So, you're okay with lying?
Did something like that come out of my mouth?
That I was okay with lying?
I don't believe I said that.
So, there's your micro-lesson on hypnosis.
Yes, somebody's saying in the comments right here, Tim says, have I been hypnotized to listen every morning?
And the answer is yes. Unambiguously yes.
And the simultaneous sip is Is overt.
I'm not hiding anything. This is completely transparent.
I tell you why I'm doing it.
I do it because it makes you addicted.
It gives you a visual and sensory trigger.
So you remember if you liked it last time, it primes you to like it this time.
If you like the beverage, I'm making you pair a beverage you like with some content.
The brands eventually merge.
So am I hypnotizing you to enjoy the simultaneous hip?
Yes. Yes.
But do you feel manipulated?
Or do you feel as if I'm making you do something you don't want to do?
Because if I change your mind, and then you do want to do it, what is that?
Well, since I don't believe in free will, it's just what it is.
It just is a thing that happened.
That's all it is. All right.
I believe I didn't have anything else to say, so we're going to end here.
And thank you for listening, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
Alright, Periscope's off.
It's just you and me here on YouTube for a moment.
We constantly re-evaluated our decisions, that's right.
So what happens if you just change your mind?
How do you know why?
The most important thing that you've seen in the last four years is to treat journalists as politicians.
That's right. There's not much real journalism anymore.
Glenn Greenwald does it, but there's not a lot of people doing the real stuff.
Is body language the same as mind reading?
Not if it has a scientific basis, and I think it does.
Comment on the crossfire about Lauren Southern?
I haven't watched that yet. Alright, that's all I've got for now.
