My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
How bad is Biden behind closed doors?
NYT reports bad things about Lincoln Project
Bipartisan agreement...no election reform
New evidence of China's Uighur genocide
Is chain-of-custody important, Georgia?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Come on in. Yes, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
And what is it about Coffee with Scott Adams that's different from the rest of your day?
That's right. It's better.
It's better than all the rest of your day.
It's the best part of the day.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
Join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Are you ready? Watch this.
Go! Does not disappoint, not once.
Alright, well, I would like to declare that things are going okay.
That's it. Things are going pretty well.
How do you know?
Because we can't stop talking about Harry and Meghan.
Let me tell you, if there's one way to know that the world is heading in the right direction, finally, it's when the biggest thing you have to talk about is Harry and Meghan.
Do you mind if I throw a little bit of extra provocation into the mix?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there some question as to whether Harry is actually related to the royal line?
I mean, he's related to his mother, but is Harry actually related to the Queen, and if he's not, would his son be related?
And do we know that?
Just ask him. Because...
Somebody says...
Somebody from Great Britain doesn't like this conversation at all.
Somebody says, don't go there.
Don't go there. Well, here's the thing.
If the royal succession is supposed to be bloodline...
Wouldn't this be a coup?
I mean, wouldn't it, if Archie ever became the king, wouldn't they have basically just taken over the bloodline?
It'd be a whole new bloodline.
Am I wrong? I mean, I haven't seen his DNA test.
I'm just wondering. You know, I'm not the one who made the rule that bloodline is what determines who gets what.
I didn't make that rule.
I'm just saying if that is the rule, we have the technology to check that bloodline now and I'd just be interested.
I'd be a little bit interested to see if he's part of it.
So I'll just throw that in the mix just to get things mixed up a little bit.
Are you having this same feeling?
I went out yesterday and I decided to just go out and take a drive and just see what things look like now that we're getting a little bit back to normal.
And I've got to tell you, yesterday felt pretty normal.
I mean, people had masks on indoors, but most things were open that are still in business.
A lot of stuff won't come back.
But the things that are in business, they seem pretty open.
And travel is happening.
You know, people are traveling.
So psychologically, see if you're with me on this.
Psychologically, but not physically, I feel like the pandemic's over.
Do you feel that? Just psychologically.
Obviously, there's still restrictions in place.
Obviously, people will still die.
Obviously, it's still a problem.
You've got to get vaccinated. So all those real things are there.
But psychologically, doesn't it feel over?
It does, doesn't it?
Because at this point, I put on my mask not because I'm afraid, but I'm just going through the motions at this point.
Because the difference between being, I don't know, one third vaccinated versus being nearly 100% protected, we're almost there.
Because if you get all the people who are vulnerable vaccinated...
We're kind of done. Because as soon as the vulnerable are vaccinated, the size of the problem shrinks down to the size of our other problems.
And we don't need to make it go to zero.
It just needs to be about the same size as our other problems, and then we can go on.
And I feel like we're there.
I mean, not really.
A few more weeks... But psychologically, where are you now compared to just months ago?
It's really different, isn't it?
Am I wrong? It feels completely different just in the last week or so.
Oh, somebody says they got the vaccine and then got coronavirus.
Well, that sucks.
Now, on my end, I'm actually going to be socially distancing a little bit harder than normal.
I mean, I'm going to try even harder because it wouldn't make sense to get the coronavirus now.
You know, so close to the vaccination.
You know, I feel like I'm in the next wave in California.
Probably the next wave gets me.
So I'm going to play it pretty safe until then.
All right. Here's a question.
So you probably heard the story that one of Joe Biden's German Shepherds in the White House apparently bit somebody and so they relocated it back to Delaware to his home.
And here's a question I ask.
If Trump had been in the White House and had two German Shepherds, would the news have just ignored that choice of breed?
Do you think that That Trump could have owned two German Shepherds and that would have been fine.
Nobody would have mentioned it.
Hey, good doggie, good doggie.
No. No, I don't think that Trump could have owned German Shepherds or Dobermans.
He could have owned a fluffy dog or something.
That's probably not his personality.
But he couldn't have gotten away with even owning those dogs.
And you know that's true, right?
Because it would have looked like Hitler with his attack dogs.
But what would have happened if Trump owned two German Shepherds and one of them bit somebody?
If one of those dogs bit somebody in the Trump administration, how long would it be before we found out the ethnicity and gender of who got bitten?
Right? Right?
We would know the ethnicity of who got bitten by now, because then that would turn into a whole story about even this dog is racist.
You know that would have happened.
So yesterday there's another Biden gaff where he couldn't remember what was it he couldn't remember the name of his Secretary of Defense he couldn't remember the name of the Pentagon it was pretty bad and he just got up there and muttered and wandered away and once again I must ask this provocative question how much Does the press know about what's happening behind closed doors with Biden?
That they're not telling us.
Do you really think that when Biden goes from his public performances, which are frankly embarrassing, do you think that as soon as he gets off camera, he comes alive and he's completely lucid?
It's only when the camera's running that he falls apart.
What do you think?
Does that seem likely?
No. It's far more likely that, if anything, he performs better for the camera because he had to get up for it.
He made sure that he didn't go out there until he was at least feeling right.
But how bad is he when he's not trying to get up for something and nobody's reporting on this?
Now, you could argue that there's a national security reason to not report on it.
But would that stop anybody?
Do you think our news would say, ooh, we better not tell Russia and China how bad he is behind closed doors, because then they might attack or something?
I don't think they're going to attack.
But when you hold in your head...
How aggressively dishonest the press is to keep this from the public?
You know there are stories.
Come on. You know that there are stories.
And we're going to hear them after Biden's out of office.
And you're going to be really mad.
You're going to be really mad when you find out what the press knew and didn't tell you.
Uh... Here's a mystery for you.
I put this on Twitter. People have lots of theories.
Let's see what you think. Why is it that, let's say for the people who believe that masks and social distancing don't make a difference, why is it that the normal seasonal flu, the regular influenza we get every year, why did that drop to zero?
Sort of everywhere.
Not just in the United States, but worldwide.
It just sort of disappeared.
Now, is your argument that for the regular influenza, if you believe the masks and distancing don't make a difference for coronavirus, do you believe that the explanation is that masks only work for regular flu, but they don't work for coronavirus?
Because it is suggested that That the regular flu may be more about surfaces, things you touch.
Whereas the coronavirus, the virus is more aerosol than airborne.
But the coronavirus is heavier, I just read, than say measles or chickenpox.
So viruses do have different weights.
So that's a real thing.
Some viruses stay in the air and some don't.
Now what is the function of a mask?
Isn't the function of a mask to stop it before, at least stop some of it before it gets out there?
Now, if the virus is on the water particles and the water particles hit the mask, you would think that they'd stay, some of them would stay on the mask.
But this mystery remains.
Now, some people said it's because everybody with the regular flu is being diagnosed as having coronavirus.
Do you believe that? Do you believe that everybody who had the regular flu is getting misdiagnosed as having coronavirus?
Now, that might have happened early on, but at this point, if you have symptoms of either flu, don't you get tested every time?
Can somebody do a fact check on that?
If you're in the United States and you go to a doctor because you've got flu symptoms of any kind, Won't they test you for coronavirus every time?
Now. Couldn't do it in the beginning, but now they'll test you every time, right?
Right? So there shouldn't be any doubt today about whether somebody has coronavirus at least.
Now, somebody said, well, what if they have both coronavirus and the regular flu?
We would treat those as coronavirus.
Well, we probably would. But how many of them are there?
How many people have coronavirus and the seasonal flu at the same time?
Maybe some, but that's not enough to change what we're seeing, right?
Our observation can't be explained by that little bit of overlap.
Other people say that the coronavirus is not nearly as big as you think because of the way we test it.
We're picking up fragments or whatever.
I don't think any of that's true, by the way.
Now, I haven't looked into it, but it does seem to me that...
That we're at least picking up that somebody had coronavirus.
So it doesn't mean that you're necessarily going to have symptoms.
So I would say that this remains a mystery.
And however this mystery is solved, we're going to learn something that we thought was true is not true.
We're either going to learn that the regular seasonal flu was never real, Like, it just wasn't real.
Is that possible? Because all of the explanations sound a little bit impossible.
So it's going to be something that doesn't sound possible.
So it's either that we've always miscounted the regular flu, and I'm kind of a proponent of the fact that we miscounted the deaths from the seasonal flu, regular flu.
Or that we tested it wrong, or that masks only work for one kind of thing but not the other.
Possible. It's possible.
But I would say it's still a pretty mystery, wouldn't you?
How did we get all the way to here?
And we don't know how to explain that.
It feels like there's something really big that we don't understand.
Now, I've been seeing on social media...
A couple things. One is that the CDC, and somebody do a fact check on this, the CDC did a study and now they're saying that the masks, I think they're talking about masks or maybe social distancing, only made, I think masks, only made like a less than 1% difference.
Do you think that could be studied?
Do you think somebody can tell you if masks worked or didn't work?
Is that possible to study that?
How? How would you possibly study that?
Where is the place that had both masks and no masks at the same time?
Because if you don't have that, you don't have anything.
There are no two places that are the same, and there's no way to know why the curve did what the curve did.
Too many variables. You could certainly observe, okay, we put in masks and things got better or they got worse, and you could compare it to other places, but that wouldn't tell you anything.
Right, there's no control group.
So the best they could do is sort of a non-randomized controlled thing where maybe they did a meta-study of combining things.
Would you trust that?
Would you trust a meta-study, some kind of a study of studies where none of them are randomized controlled trials?
None of them are. But if you add them together, they'll tell you something.
Now, that is a thing. There are times when you can actually get to truth by doing exactly that, adding together the studies and, you know, you hope that they cancel out whatever they did wrong.
If they didn't all make the same mistake, you hope it cancels out.
So that's a real thing. But I don't believe that the CDC can study this.
I don't believe this is testable because there are too many other variables.
If the masks were one of three variables, then maybe you could tease it out.
But we don't even know why we don't have a seasonal flu.
Like, very fundamental questions.
We don't know about what's going on.
So whatever's happening in terms of Why this thing is spreading?
We can't study that.
So I wouldn't believe the CDC when they say masks don't work, and I wouldn't believe them when they say they do, because they can't study it.
So you would have to treat it like a risk management problem.
If you're treating it like a binary, masks work.
Or masks don't work.
That's not the way to treat this.
You have to treat it as a risk management situation, knowing that you don't know.
All right. I guess the New York Times is finally reporting that the Lincoln Project was a big old scam of grifters.
I'm paraphrasing a little bit.
But wouldn't you have liked to know...
That the Lincoln Project was a big ol' scam before the election?
We've got some great reporting now after the election when nobody cares about the Lincoln Project.
They're not that relevant anymore.
But now we find out.
Now we find out.
I'm having this sort of ongoing Twitter exchange with Eric Brynjolfsson.
He's a professor at Stanford.
I've mentioned him before. And he was saying that there have been a number of bills proposed for fixing the election system.
And he points out that before the election, Republicans killed the proposed law, the SAFE Act, Which would have required robust manual audits of all federal races and banned internet connectivity to voting systems.
And I think there was at least one other time when proposed voting improvements were killed either by Republicans or Democrats or both.
What do you make of that? Let's say there's a bill to improve voting, doesn't matter what the details are, and the Republicans kill it.
What's that tell you about the bill?
Does that tell you it was a bad bill because the Republicans voted against it?
If you're an idiot, it tells you that.
Yeah. If you have an IQ of, say, 80, just to pick a number, and you hear that the Republicans voted against a voting bill, you'd say to yourself, huh, Republicans are smart and honest and trustworthy.
And they voted against it.
So, therefore, it was a bad bill.
Right? Well, that would be bad thinking.
Here's good thinking.
The people voting for or against that bill got elected under the current system.
The current system...
With all of its flaws, supports the incumbents.
Why the hell would the incumbents vote against their own interests?
Because anything they change is going to put them at risk because the way things are is perfect.
Right? 98% of incumbents get re-elected.
That's almost perfect.
So you're asking the only people on earth Literally, the only people on earth who are the wrong people to work on this problem.
Because they all benefit from not changing it.
That's what an incumbent benefits from.
So, the first thing we need to do is take them out of the mix.
Maybe we can let Congress vote yes or no on something that was, let's say, put together by independents.
If there's some kind of bipartisan, independent commission that comes up with a bunch of recommendations, well, maybe we could force our politicians to vote for it if we put enough pressure on them.
But the current system is ridiculous.
Don't ask the people benefiting from the system to change it.
That's crazy. All you're going to get is what we're getting.
Which is the people who vote against it will say, well, I had good reasons.
Look at all my good reasons for voting against this.
And you'll look at the reasons and you'll think, well, actually those are pretty good reasons.
And you'll think that your representative did a good job voting against that.
Nothing like that's happening.
You have a bunch of people who have no interest in changing it, and it's their job.
And that's the end of the story.
It won't change...
It can't change.
There's nothing we know about the world that would suggest that voting will be fixed if the people who don't want it to be fixed are the only ones in charge.
That's it. So, let's fix that.
Right? We should not even be having a conversation about which politician voted for or proposed a bill.
That's stupid talk. We don't care what they propose.
I don't care what anybody in Congress proposes.
They're all untrustworthy on this question.
On this question.
They could be trustworthy on, you know, any number of other things.
But on this question?
The one that determines whether they personally get re-elected?
No, we can't trust them.
We have to take that out of their control.
Now, let me say this.
If Biden were to do that, and let me give you the most weirdly optimistic thing you've ever heard in your life.
I don't predict this will happen.
So unfortunately, my prediction and my optimism are not aligned right now, right?
But here's something that could happen.
What is the one kind of person...
Who could change this situation?
Like, what type of person would be in the right position and have the right mindset and incentives to fix the voting system?
There are two people I can think of.
One is Biden, and the other is Trump, for completely different reasons.
Biden has a chance...
To go out as one of the greatest leaders we've ever had.
He only has to change one thing.
Just change the election process to make it transparent and credible.
Now, if he were to stay in office and he were a younger man and he had to live with the Democrats and put up with whatever pressures they're putting on him to not change things, well, you know, I don't expect things to change.
But... Biden doesn't have a lot of days left, and he does have an opportunity to go out on top.
If he only changed one thing, which was to say, I'm going to set up an executive order or something, I'm going to set up a bipartisan commission, and then we're going to bring the recommendation to the Congress, and I'm going to let the entire public see what we see.
Public, take a look at this.
Watch your members of Congress not vote for this thing that a bipartisan commission said is the only way to fix the election.
And then leave on top.
I would be willing to say Biden would be one of our greatest presidents if he did that one thing.
And then even, you know, resign and put Kamala in charge.
He's still one of the greatest if he does the one thing.
Now, who's the other person who could do the one thing?
Trump. But he'd have to be at the end of his second term, right?
He still needs to get elected to a second term if that's what he wants.
But there are only two people who can do it.
Here's the good news.
They might be in charge, right?
One after another. So I'm not optimistic in terms of a prediction, but it could be fixed.
Yeah, I'm a dreamer.
You're right. Yeah, the odds of Biden doing that are vanishingly small.
But it's interesting to know that he could.
And I will tell you this.
There is something about...
And this is my private view of the world that is shared by basically nobody.
So here's something you're not going to agree with.
The office changes the office holder...
More than the person changes the office.
Meaning that the presidency has to change you.
No matter how much of a turd you were when you were running for office and working your way up through politics to become a candidate, no matter how bad you were in those days and how selfish, by the time you become president, It's actually your job?
Like, literally, it's your job to take care of all this stuff.
I think it changes you.
And whatever you say about Biden did or did not do in the past and blah blah blah blah, he's president now.
He's the president now.
And I don't think he would hate a chance to go out on top if it really helped the country.
I believe that everybody who is in that office is a patriot because the office turns them into one.
So that's at least a possibility that's out there.
So we've got new evidence from some independent group that says that China is involved in a genuine genocide against the Uyghurs.
Fifty global experts in human rights, war crimes, and international law looked into it and said, absolutely, positively, it's a Uyghur genocide.
Now, China, of course, explains it in terms of trying to control dangerous extremism.
Now, what they call dangerous extremism is the extreme version of Islam.
But here's an interesting and provocative thought.
How could Islam ever end without a genocide?
Isn't genocide built into the guaranteed outcome?
Isn't it? Because imagine if Islam continues to spread, and let's say the Chinese government degraded to the point where There were so many Islamic citizens that there weren't that many of the old Chinese type, I suppose. Now, I don't know how long that would take.
Long time, I suppose.
But Islam has an interesting characteristic, not so much the way it's practiced in the United States, but if you leave the religion, you can be killed for leaving the religion, which is a strong advantage for a system.
If you want a system that will grow and not shrink, try killing people who leave.
Because you can always attract people, and then you don't want to lose any.
So Islam has a superior system, independent of what you believe about reality or anything else.
But in terms of a growing system, it's just a better one.
And China has decided that this growing system, which is a superior system in terms of growth, needs to be controlled because it would be a danger to China.
Are they wrong? Is China wrong that if they let Islam flourish, that China would be in trouble?
Are they wrong? Yeah, we can't talk about that, can we?
Can't talk about that.
Because here's the problem.
They're not wrong.
Now, the thing they're doing is still a genocide.
It's still evil. It needs to be stopped.
But they're not wrong about the risk.
They're not. Because it's built right into the system.
It's just, at the moment, it's very small.
But it's built to grow.
It's like catching a virus early.
You don't say the virus, if it's only infected a few people, is no problem.
You say, uh-oh, it's a virus.
Viruses grow. So there's no way you can morally or ethically support what China's doing.
It's a genocide. It's a frickin' genocide.
But I would only add this.
That Islam has to end in genocide.
It just is a question of how long it takes.
Because either the winners, let's say if Islam dominated, would end up crushing and performing genocide, I think, on a number of different societies if they became dominant enough.
So as soon as you inject genocide, Islam into the system worldwide.
And again, this is not such an issue in the United States, of course.
But worldwide, where you have, let's say, a more robust version of Islam.
So I don't put an insult on it.
It's a more robust version.
And it has to end in genocide.
It's just a matter of who gets killed.
Because that's the system as it's designed.
If it grows, it has to create genocides.
And China is just saying, well, if we genocide you first, you won't later get big enough to genocide us later.
Because that is, in fact, built into your plan.
Now, it's an interesting question, isn't it?
It's an interesting question.
You can't support genocide, ever, under any conditions.
But what was the other thing they were supposed to do?
What was the other way to play it?
They didn't have one.
Now, can't support it, but I'm just pointing out that it's a more complicated situation than you think.
All right. I keep seeing this story, and I can't believe it's real.
Can you tell me if this story is real?
That the chain of custody documents for 400,000 Georgia mail-in votes is missing, like permanently missing, like they will never be turned up.
And the state was only won by 12,000 votes in the presidential election.
And 400,000 of them we can't trace or audit.
I'm looking at your comments.
I don't see anybody saying it's not true.
Everybody thinks it's true.
But... How in the world are we okay with this?
Is there something I don't know about it?
Is there something I don't know in the sense that even if they're missing, that doesn't mean that the election was fraudulent?
In other words, was there some way that something could be audited that would make us not worry about this?
Is there some other way we know we don't have to worry about it?
What am I missing? Why is this not the only story?
Why is there any other story?
Because wouldn't this be proof?
There's no proof of a fraudulent election.
But wouldn't it be proof that it's a non-transparent election?
It feels like we should be able to say at this point...
Unambiguously, with nobody arguing with us, that the election was not transparent.
This one case alone, given that Georgia was important to a lot of things, how many other states have this same problem, where the chain of custody for the mail-in votes is missing?
Is Georgia the only one who has this problem?
Let me ask you this.
If you had a lot of these mail-in vote pickup boxes, or even if they just went through the post office, if somebody was intelligently throwing away votes from pro-Trump areas, because they would kind of know which areas were more pro-Trump, just throw them all away, how would you know?
How would you know if ballots were just discarded?
Would you know that? Now, it doesn't look like it could have been done at a widespread scale because the number of total votes for both candidates was so high.
So we had an unprecedented number of votes, so it doesn't look like there were massive throwing away votes, but you wouldn't have to do it massively.
You could do it targeted.
So... I feel as though every time somebody argues that there was fraud in the election, they're just walking into a trap.
Because the trap always springs the same way.
I think there was fraud in the election trap.
Courts say there was no fraud in the election, which has nothing to do with the claim, right?
Because the courts didn't really look at much.
But you're still done.
For some reason, that argument beats your argument.
Because you don't have proof.
Courts don't either.
It's sort of the end of the argument.
But when you talk about the 400,000 missing chain of custody documents, that's proof of non-transparency.
And I think that's the strong argument.
The non-transparency.
Let's see. I'm gonna do a micro lesson a little bit later today on the Locals platform.
That's where I put my stuff that you don't see here.
And it's gonna be on the how to use filters to be successful.
And here's the key.
We have filters on the world such as one filter is everything's racial.
Another filter is it's always about the money.
Another filter is it's always about power.
So there are lots of filters you can apply.
The mistake we make is to think that the filter is telling you what the truth is.
We don't have access to the truth.
So if you're using your filter that way, you're using it wrong.
But if you use a filter because it seems to consistently give you a good outcome, that's a good filter.
Even if it's not telling you the truth.
So what I'm going to teach you on...
Locals later is how to know that you're using your filter correctly, not as an indicator of truth, but as a, let's say, a map for how to solve a problem.
And that will be one of the most useful things you've ever heard in your life.
It really will be. Now, I want to tell you a weird simulation thing from yesterday, and I want you to try this at home.
How many times have you lost your phone...
When you knew it had to be right here somewhere, and then you're looking room to room, and you're saying, I literally just had it in my hand.
How many times has that happened to you?
And then you look through your whole house, and it just seems to be gone.
It's just gone. And I was doing this last night.
And I've told you before that I don't view reality the same way you do.
I do view it as that we're literally in a simulation.
And I do view it as though history is created on demand.
So if you believe that history is created on demand, you can make your phone appear.
If you believe that there's a base reality that's just reality, that your phone is lost, he can't find it.
But the moment you believe that your entire experience is subjective, you can make the phone appear.
So last night, I looked through my whole house, literally had tried every surface of every room that I knew I was in.
And then I stopped and I said, alright, the normal way of filtering my environment didn't work.
My normal filter didn't work.
So I'm going to change my filter.
So I said, all right, consciously I'm going to change my filter now.
My new filter is that I can make that phone appear simply by recognizing that I live in a simulation and that I can make the past anything I want it to be.
And once I've made it that, it will be filled in with false memories that make it all make sense.
And the moment I said that...
And said, alright, suppose it's just a simulation and I'm going to make that phone appear.
I walked directly over to the phone and picked it up.
True story. The moment I reframed it as a simulation where I could make the phone appear, I walked directly to it without stopping and picked it up.
Now, Now, the first thing you get to say to yourself is, well, that's a coincidence, or that just reminded you of where the phone was, or it's always in the last place you look, because that's when you stop looking.
So do you think there is any significance to that?
I don't. I don't think there's significance in terms of some kind of proof that I caused the phone to appear in some magical way.
I don't think that. Here's what I do think.
As soon as I changed my filter, I found my phone.
Keep in mind that the filters are not viewers of reality.
The first filter was not a view of reality, and the second one was not a view of reality.
I did not improve my filter to see a better reality.
I just changed it.
And the moment I did, something in my brain worked a little better, and then I walked over and picked up my phone.
The one place I forgot that I had been, right?
And, yeah, same thing with glasses, etc.
So, be very specific about what the claim is.
The claim is not that it caused magic.
The claim is that shifting your filter just makes your brain work differently, and that might be advantageous.
That's all. Just made my brain work differently, and that might have given me some advantage.
So, try it.
I've done this a number of times, and it's a subjective experience, so it feels like something magic happens every time.
Whenever I just say, okay, it's a simulation, let's just play it like a game.
And it's amazing how often it works.
Somebody says, my mom did that too.
She prayed a little bit. I wouldn't be surprised if praying allowed you to find your phone for exactly the same mechanism.
you might be able to pray your phone into existence.
When I can't watch a scary movie, I just let my wife go through my phone.
Ha, ha, ha, ha.
You know, the worst part about letting a spouse or a partner go through your phone is not the bad stuff that they find.
It's the stuff that wasn't bad that looks like it, if you see that in context.
That's dangerous.
That's dangerous.
Ever heard of find my iPhone?
Well, it doesn't work so well within a house.
It's not that accurate. Need a filter on depression.
Well, believe it or not, that is an area in which I put a lot of effort into.
Figuring out how to reframe your experience to make yourself happier.
Now the problem is that depression I doubt it's the same in all people, right?
I doubt there's some exact part of your brain that's always the problem if you're depressed.
It's probably a constellation of different brain-related and experience-related things.
So it's hard to find one solution that works for a whole bunch of different things that just happen to have the same label.
But, that said, for maybe some proportion of people who would label themselves as depressed, I would imagine that there's something you can do by reframing your experience that would change it, change your subjective feeling.
Imagine, if you will, just take one example.
Suppose you went from having a point of view that you had no control over your environment.
Nothing you can do. Now, suppose you change that and reframed it to you have lots of control over your environment.
It's a simulation. You can guide it.
You can build a talent stack.
You can do the smart things instead of the dumb things.
If you imagine that you went from having no control to having all kinds of control, even if nothing's really different, it's just how you're viewing it, Would that make you less depressed?
Well, not everybody, obviously.
Because again, different reasons for being depressed.
Maybe some. Maybe some.
And that may not be the reframe that helps many people, but I feel like there are a lot of reframing opportunities that we haven't used.
Somebody says, you jackasses still looking for those votes?
Well, let me address this.
There are two kinds of people who are really fucking stupid, and you're one of them.
Who is this? Dedra?
You're one of the two really fucking stupid types of people.
One is you're positive that there was widespread fraud in the election.
You're positive. Well, you haven't really seen the proof.
You've seen statistics and stuff like that.
But it's kind of stupid to say that you know that it was fixed.
Do you think it was probably fixed?
I think people could reasonably think that it probably was.
Because any system that has a lack of transparency and a big gain if you could rig it will be rigged eventually.
So I would say this.
It is not brilliant to say you know it has been rigged.
But it is brilliant to say it will be eventually, if it hasn't been.
Because this kind of a system has to be rigged, every time.
Because it's riggable, and there's a really big gain, and you don't see many people getting caught!
Actually, we wouldn't know how many people are getting away with anything.
So, under that situation, fraud is guaranteed.
But we can't see it, right?
We don't have access. It's not transparent.
So, it's stupid to say it absolutely was a rigged election.
It is equally stupid, maybe stupider a little bit, to say that it definitely wasn't.
You don't know that.
That's what a non-transparent system means.
How many mail-in votes got thrown away?
Do you know?
I don't know.
I don't know.
Now, so those are the two really serious, stupid opinions.
Definitely was fixed.
Definitely wasn't.
Everything in between is reasonable people with functional brains.
You know, they're maybe estimating opinion.
That's all fair. The stupid people are on the extremes.
Like you, my friend.
Just in case you didn't know if you were stupid.
I'd like to fill you in.
Trump said he won by a landslide.
Well, you know, if you are the candidate, I think you have to get a little slack.
You know, Trump probably has a belief that's in the...
Greater than 90% likelihood.
So if the candidate exaggerates that to a certainty, that's just part of the game.
But you don't have to do that.
You're not talking in public.
You can just have a real opinion.
And if it's 100%, maybe it shouldn't be.
Somebody says they think Trump has access to information you don't have.
Maybe. But if it were damning, I think we would know it by now.
Alright. That's all I've got for now.
I will talk to you tomorrow.
And maybe tomorrow we'll have some more interesting news.
How can we eliminate the rise of a permanent political class?
Well... The problem is that permanent political class are the only ones who can vote for term limits.
So they won't. So there's not much we can do about it.
Thank you, McLean.
All right. I just want to see this comment.
I wish you'd read YouTube comments and not Periscope.
I do both. But the actual reason is that I've got I've got two iPads here, and my Periscope iPad is a larger one, and I can just see them a little bit more clearly.
