Episode 1375 Scott Adams: Israel's Clever Tunnel Decoy Plan, Masks Off For the Vaccinated, Checking Your Predictions
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CDC says no mask needed if vaccinated
Israel's clever tunnel ploy
Fake news causes mental health issues
CNN & MSNBC fake news
Fauci and gain of function support
How to find luck
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's time. Yeah, it's time for Coffee with Scott Adams.
Best part of your day and today will be even better than usual.
And I know that's a pretty high bar, but watch me clear it.
No problem. And all you need is To join me, clearing that bar and having the best day you've ever had, thanks to the Simultaneous Sip.
All you need is a cup or a mug, a glass of tank or chelsea, a canteen jug, a glass of vessel of any kind, and 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.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
I think you've heard of it. And it's going to happen now.
Go. I think I added a little extra slurping to that one just to give a little extra kick.
Yeah. Well, how do you all feel today?
Better, right? Yes, for the fully vaccinated, you get to take off your masks.
Some places. No, when I say that your fully vaccinated people can take off their masks, I don't mean in my state.
No, no, no. California isn't like other places.
So just because the CDC finally said it's safe to take off your mask if you're fully vaccinated, except in specific cases, well, that did not change the policy in New York or California, in which the governors both said, wait a minute, can't take your masks off yet.
How does that make you feel if you're in New York or California?
I'll tell you how it makes me feel.
I'm not going to listen to this anymore.
Now, of course you have to listen to businesses, or if you want to get on a plane and they've got a rule, you have to listen to that.
But I just can't listen to the governors on this.
I just don't respect their authority and would not plan to obey it at all.
So I'm a few days away from my second vaccination, another week or so, and can somebody give me a fact check on this?
Is a person considered fully vaccinated at the moment they get their second shot, or is it another two weeks after the shot?
Can somebody give me a ruling on that?
And is it the same for all three types of vaccinations?
Well, one of them has just one.
Somebody says two weeks.
So what I'm wondering is, is the two weeks also applicable to the two-dose?
So I'm seeing maybe a little different messages here.
Let's figure that out before the end of today.
Seems pretty important, doesn't it?
So I'm seeing two weeks after.
But I think there might be a difference between what the scientific peak is and what the social legal guideline peak is.
In other words, maybe you can still fly if you just got your second vaccination, but maybe technically you're not fully vaccinated.
Is it going to be something like that?
So we need some clarity on that.
That's a pretty important point.
And I'm surprised...
Given how important it is, I'm surprised it's not a prominent part of the news.
And it should be. Alright, so here's the good news.
A lot of people are blaming the CDC for being slow to do this.
But I'm going to go against the grain a little bit and say that the CDC does have an obligation...
To be a little safer than you and I might choose for ourselves.
I don't feel like I can blame the CDC for waiting for...
I guess they waited to find out if the variants would be handled by the vaccinations.
And apparently they are, at least so far.
And I think there was some more information they got about vaccinations and transmission.
So they did wait until they had all the information.
I'm not sure you would want that to be different, even if you and I would have made different decisions, because you and I would just be deciding for ourselves, right?
But if it's your job to make the recommendation, I don't know that I care that they wait a few extra weeks.
You know, I feel like that's responsible.
So I, of course, am a I'm a critic of the CDC for the things they get wrong, but I just can't fault them for being a little extra cautious compared to what individuals would do.
That's kind of where you want it.
I don't think you'd want it the other way.
I don't think you'd want the CDC to take more chances than an individual would with their own life.
I don't think you'd want that.
So we have plenty to complain about with the CDC, but I'm not going to complain about this one.
I am going to complain about my governor.
I don't quite understand why my governor thinks the vaccinated people still need a mask.
As I said before, the public will lead on this.
Apparently, we'll have to.
And I think that when I'm fully vaccinated, I would certainly obey what any business wanted me to do.
Because businesses can set their own rules, right?
Private business. It says you've got to do this or you've got to do that.
A private business can tell you to wear a shirt and shoes.
So I don't have any problem with any private business.
But sure as hell, the moment I'm fully vaccinated, I'm not going to obey my governor, who tells me I've got to keep my mask on if I walk down the sidewalk or something.
There's no way I'm going to obey the governor if he opposes the CDC recommendation.
That would be dumb. Now, I get that each state is different, but not different enough.
Yeah, we're all different.
We're not that different.
So there has to be a point where the public leads, because the government is not a good entity to do it.
The government's...
I would say the government's incentive is maximum safety, whereas a human being's incentive is maximum life, which might mean a little less safety, cleverly chosen.
So I don't think that we should depend on our government or really even force them to make the decision for us.
I think we just make the decision now.
Is everybody with me?
That at this point...
Now that the crisis part is, well, not quite over, but we're sort of on the border of the crisis part being over, you want your government to be in charge when it's a crisis.
Right? You know, they're not perfect, but your best bet in an emergency is to listen to the government.
Once the emergency is over, and we all have kind of similar information, their incentives and yours might not be aligned.
And yours matter more.
Right? Once we're out of the crisis, if your individual citizen opinion differs from your government, I back you, the citizen.
Because your government is the wrong entity to judge whether your safety versus your life decisions are right.
Once it's not a crisis.
If you're in a crisis, yes.
Let the government lead.
But now it's time for the government to get out of the way.
We're on the border of that point where the citizens just have to take it upon themselves, I think.
I think we just have to make it a fact by the way we act.
So it wouldn't matter if you had mask mandates if nobody put on a mask.
It's not like they could enforce it.
If everybody just threw away their mask all at once, that would be it.
So don't imagine that the government has control over this.
You, the citizens, have complete control from about this point on.
You did not have complete control in the past.
But from now on, you do have control.
I mean, it's returning to you.
And those people who...
This is another time to check your predictions.
Were you one of the people who thought that the government was going to make you wear masks forever, no matter what?
Did you ever think that?
Because if you did, I don't think that was a good prediction.
I feel like a lot of people were saying it, and I kept thinking to myself, no, I'm pretty sure this is temporary.
You know, you still hear people saying...
Saying that we'll have to wear masks forever or under certain situations forever.
I don't think so.
So I think this is going just the way we wanted it to.
Now, of course, you'll still need masks for travel for a while.
And I guess there was a situation in which a number of the Yankees baseball team got...
Got infected despite all being vaccinated.
So a number of the people who played for the Yankees had the J&J one-shot vaccination but have since become infected.
Now there's no evidence that I think most of them had no symptoms, one might have had a little bit.
So they all seem perfectly safe, which is the whole point of the vaccination.
So the vaccination is working.
That's the good news. But it is clear now, all doubt has been removed, that apparently you can catch the virus fairly easily even if you have the vaccination.
But don't you want to know if that applies to all the vaccinations?
Because the Yankees all have the J&J, the one-shot vaccination, which we know to be a little less powerful, but powerful enough to keep you from dying.
So if the Yankees had had the Moderna or the Pfizer, would they have been just as infected after getting vaccinated?
Don't know. But every time we hear about one of these people getting infected after vaccination, such as Bill Maher, apparently Bill Maher...
And by the way, is it possible to go through a Friday without Bill Maher being in the headlines?
When was the last Friday...
There was not a headline about Bill Maher.
What's going on with that?
I feel like it's telling us something, right?
Because there are a lot of political pundits, but why is Bill Maher always in the news on Friday?
I mean, his show comes on Friday, so that's the trigger for it.
But is he so newsworthy that every Friday he's going to be like a political statement?
And here's the answer.
Yes. Yes, he is.
He is exactly that newsworthy.
And the reason he's newsworthy is that he's simply not easily identifiable with fully hypnotized on the left or fully hypnotized on the right.
He's carved out a unique position where he can follow the science or the logic as best he can.
Now, of course, I've disagreed with Bill Maher on a number of topics over the years, so I'm not saying he always gets it right according to me, as if my judgment is the final word on things.
But I do think he's carved out a special place in America as a person who intends to tell the truth.
And has some capability to do it, because he does seem a little bit resistant to cognitive dissonance.
Not completely, because none of us are completely free from confirmation bias or cognitive dissonance.
It's not a thing a person can do.
You can't be free of that.
But he is freer than most, and I think part of the reason you can be free is if you have a little bit of history of taking positions on each side, That your cognitive dissonance isn't going to be triggered by being locked into an opinion you're unwilling to change.
So, speaking of predictions, I thought this would be a good time, now that we've got a few months of Biden, so that we've got a sense of Biden at this point, wouldn't you say?
I don't know if what Biden has done so far will be perfectly predictive of what he does for the rest of his presidency, however long that lasts.
But we've got a good sense of it now, and I would say this would be a good time to go back and check your Trump-related predictions for how he would do in office, We're good to go.
You know, nobody's going to get every topic.
But do you think that what you thought Trump would do, he largely did?
And do you think that the way Biden is performing is largely what you expected?
Let's see your predictions.
My prediction about your predictions is that cognitive dissonance will cause everybody to believe they were accurate.
LAUGHTER So as you're all telling me how accurate you were, oh, actually somebody said 50-50.
So whoever just said 50-50, you might be the most aware person who's answering this question.
And not because your predictions were only 50-50, but because you know that.
How many people here were right half of the time and are also aware of it?
Very rare. So whoever said they were right only about 50% of the time, you're operating probably on a higher level of awareness than a lot of the rest of the public.
Because most of us, and I'm definitely in this category, most of us think we got it about 90%.
Right?
And we even had different predictions.
I'll bet if you asked the biggest Trump hater...
Were your predictions correct?
They would say, oh yeah, totally my predictions were correct.
He colluded with Russia, which didn't happen.
He said that Nazis and Charlottesville were fine people, which literally didn't happen.
It was a hoax. He told us to drink bleach, which didn't happen.
So you see where I'm going, right?
Both the left and the right think their predictions are accurate.
Because the fake news will tell everybody they got it right.
And then your memory will give you cognitive dissonance and rewrite your memories.
But let me ask you this specifically.
How many Democrats believed that once Trump was out of office, there was one thing you knew for sure?
He was in deep, deep legal trouble.
Right? Right? Was there anybody on the left, anybody, was there even one person who was anti-Trump, literally even one person, who believed that he would still be a free man a few months after leaving office?
And indeed, we heard today that there was some move to get a hold of, let's see, Apparently I'm not good at making notes because I didn't write that one down.
But in the Trump world, there's apparently one of the employees of the Trump organization, they're looking into some payments about a school or something.
And I'm thinking to myself, if we're hearing a leak about somebody who works in the Trump organization, not Trump himself and not a family member, just somebody high in the organization, Who's being investigated for some specific thing that they did, and maybe not even Trump himself, but you've heard of it, right?
But what you haven't heard is anything that sounds like a smoking gun that would put Trump in jail or even in great legal peril.
Have you? Doesn't it seem to me that it wasn't long ago that all the smart people on the left were saying, well, there's this banking thing And surely they will find it is taxes, right?
How long do you have to wait before you can say there's no legal, at least no fatal risk for Trump legally?
I feel as if all of his legal problems were either fake...
Or there were things that could be handled in the normal course of a rich person defending themselves against legal claims.
And don't you believe that you would have heard a credible leak by now if they had found some kind of really good stuff to get Trump in trouble?
But you haven't, have you?
Now, how long do you wait before you can conclude that means something?
I don't know. In the legal world, maybe you have to wait a year, right?
But how long has the district of...
Is it the Southern District of New York?
How long has the state of New York been looking into Trump?
A year? Give me an estimate.
It's been a year, right? Or more than a year.
And not a single leak.
No arrest.
And then when one leak does come out...
It's a leak about somebody else.
It's as if they found somebody else's problem, but they didn't find Trump's.
Although I think Trump is part of that story, but it's not clear how.
So there's something, somebody says at least two years that they've been investigating.
If you predicted he would be in jail by now, I guess you were wrong.
And if you predicted he would be in deep legal trouble, I don't know.
I feel as if we'd know, right?
If they were closing in on them, and how CNN always reports that the walls are closing in, if any of that were happening, they'd be reporting it, right?
Because they love that stuff.
They'd be making it up, even if it were not happening.
All right. Oh, I did make a note of it.
So the prosecutors, the Wall Street Journal said the prosecutors subpoenaed a Manhattan private school for information relating to Does that sound like Trump himself is in trouble?
It really doesn't, does it?
Sounds like they just found some unrelated thing.
All right, here's the big other story.
Israel, of course, is responding to Hamas's more than a thousand rockets fired at Gaza into Israel.
And I don't know if you saw this news, but reportedly, And I don't think you can believe any news that comes out of a war zone.
But let's say it's true for conversation.
As long as you accept the premise that all reporting during the beginning of a military action, the odds of any of this reporting being accurate?
Kind of low. But let's say it is.
Reportedly, the Israeli Defense Forces tricked Hamas into believing there was going to be a ground invasion.
Now apparently, in the event of a ground invasion, Israel was aware that the Hamas militants would flood into this major network of tunnels that they have, and that they would be able to come out of the tunnels to attack any tanks that were coming on a ground invasion.
And so Israel faked Hamas into filling the tunnels with their fighters, And then they bombed the tunnels and they didn't invade.
So the invasion was a head fake.
One of the better head fakes I've ever heard of in the military world, if it's true.
Again, I would assign a credibility to this whole set of stories about Israel and the tunnels, 50% maybe, maximum, 60% tops, just because it's a war zone and you don't get accurate information.
But let's say it's true. Now, here's the morbid but interesting facts about this.
Number one, when you bomb a network of tunnels, do they all collapse and then kill the people in them instantly?
I don't think so, right?
Isn't it more likely that maybe fighters would be trapped in a tunnel and They had been partially collapsed.
Maybe they couldn't get out, but they're not immediately dead.
Probably, right? How many of those people who would be presumably trapped in a collapsed tunnel, but still alive, how many of them had their cell phones with them?
And if they had their cell phones with them, they'd be using them, right?
As in, hey, get me out of here, start digging.
At that point...
Can Israel just put some surveillance above where they think the tunnels are and just watch where the digging is?
Or, better yet, can they just detect exactly where the phone is and bomb it again?
Because, you know, they would suffocate eventually, but they would still have time to use their cell phones if they were alive and if they had them.
So it's possible that they don't bring cell phones to war.
Right? But I think even our soldiers bring cell phones, don't they?
I don't know the answer to that.
Maybe they don't. Maybe they don't.
But, you know, obviously they use them off-duty.
Now, here's the other interesting thing.
Whenever somebody gets killed on the Hamas side, there's a big burial and everything.
And this is a real morbid thought.
If you kill people in tunnels...
If you kill people in tunnels, there's no body.
Israel found a way to kill mass numbers of Hamas terrorists without ever anybody filming a body.
I'm guessing, right?
So, in terms of persuasion, Israel used persuasion to get them into the tunnels, to bomb them, and They get the second benefit of persuasion that there are no photographs of dead bodies.
And if they ever showed their dead bodies, they would probably look like just somebody asleep because all their body parts would be intact if they died in a tunnel.
So this might end up, you know, I think we'll learn more about this, but this could easily end up as one of the great military moves of all time.
As morbid as it is.
So Rasmussen is reporting again another situation in which watching CNN and MSNBC makes you dumber.
Now, to be fair, if they had asked about other topics, such as, let's say, support for QAnon, probably more Republicans would have support for QAnon than for Democrats.
So you have to just be aware that the questions that are being asked skew in one direction.
At some point we'll probably see some questions in the other direction.
But here's the outcome. Apparently nearly a quarter of CNN viewers and 19% of MSNBC viewers think cops shot more than 500 unarmed black suspects last year.
But only 9% of Fox News viewers think so.
It's a pretty big difference.
So if you watch CNN or MSNBC, you would have something like a 10 times inaccurate view of what's happening with police and black unarmed Americans.
10 times.
You wouldn't even be close.
But Fox viewers, pretty accurate.
Think of that. A quarter of CNN viewers think that cops are shooting 500 unarmed black suspects a year.
The number is closer to 50, so one-tenth of that.
And I was wondering, does the mental health industry...
Recognize journalistic abuse as sort of a victim category, you know, a mental health problem.
Imagine you're a viewer of CNN or MSNBC versus being a viewer of, let's say, Fox News.
If you were to believe the opinion people on Fox News, that maybe George Soros is, you know, going to Have control of everything and it's all a big plot or something.
You might be a little worried, but you probably wouldn't spend much of your day worrying about it.
Like it wouldn't intrude on the rest of your day.
You'd probably just be thinking about it when you're talking politics.
But if you watched CNN and MSNBC, you would believe that you could be dead any minute.
You would think that the climate is going to kill you or your grandchildren.
You would think that if you take a ride in your car and your skin is brown, your odds of getting shot is pretty high.
And, of course, you would have thought that Trump was going to start a nuclear war.
You would have thought he was going to round up gay people and put them in concentration camps.
I mean, nothing even close to reality.
But you would have thought that.
And those are the kind of fears that you actually fear day to day.
The world is surrounded by white supremacists.
I think I see one. Those are things you worry about in the moment.
I feel as if there's a difference in what conservatives worry about that isn't true.
So if we just take the QAnon example, or George Soros, but you don't like that example probably.
There are things that the right believes that are clearly not true, but they also are things that don't kill you immediately.
They're sort of like conceptual system shifts over time.
But whereas the left is worried about stuff that will kill you right now.
Or if not now, it's going to get your grandchildren.
But it's sort of specific and dangerous.
That's got to be a mental health problem.
There's no way around that. There's news out of the Arizona audit that I don't yet believe.
But the The report is that some major database was deleted before the audit people could get their hands on it.
Now, if that happened, and if it was intentional, it probably means something.
But, do you think anybody would ever go to jail for deleting a database that shouldn't have been deleted?
Probably not. Because the defense would be easy.
The defense would be, oops!
Right? It's like, oops!
I forgot that this was one of the machines that we were supposed to keep the data on.
Or, oops, I told Bob to take care of the machines, but what I meant was to keep them safe.
When he heard take care of the machines, he thought he would do the normal maintenance, which included wiping the database.
So nobody's going to go to jail, right?
There's no crime here. Why wouldn't they delete it?
Right? If anything was on there that might have looked suspicious, why wouldn't you delete it?
There's just not going to be a penalty for it.
I can't imagine there would be enough evidence to put somebody in jail for it.
I think they'll just say, oh, big mistake.
Sorry. Oops.
You know, bureaucracy. Things aren't that clear.
And then we have...
Apparently the auditors are also asking Dominion for their passwords to some machines, and Dominion is saying no.
It says that's too far, and they couldn't give them passwords to machines.
To which I say to myself, there's something about this story I don't understand.
Do all the machines have the same password?
Somebody says, you are so dead wrong about Dominion.
I haven't talked about Dominion yet.
What do you think I'm wrong about?
Come back here. Come back here.
All right, L. Green says, you are so dead wrong about dominion.
Do you know how often people who tell me I'm wrong can accurately describe my opinion?
Almost never. Almost never.
So, L. Green, I will challenge you to describe my opinion in, you know, just a statement, like, you believe X... And then tell me what's wrong with it.
But start with accurately describing my opinion.
You can't do it. You know you can't do it.
Try. Just give it a shot.
Just in a sentence or two, what do you think my opinion was that you're disagreeing with?
Yeah, I can't watch every opinion go by, but if anybody sees it, you will know that this is the normal way people debate.
They literally hallucinate my opinion, and then they get pretty worked up about how wrong it is.
When was the last time somebody disagreed with me who also understood what I was saying?
Not a lot. Not a lot.
Sure, it happens. But it's very rare.
I would say at least 90% of all the people disagreeing with me can't state my opinion.
Because I tend to have some nuance that escapes most political punditry.
And here's James Bond says, Scott's opinion is a moving target.
Now that's the other hallucination.
Because... The way cognitive dissonance works, and if you haven't seen it in action, it goes like this.
I say the sky is blue, and then you say, how can you say the sky is green?
And then I say, no, I didn't say that.
I said the sky is blue, which you agree with.
And then, because cognitive dissonance kicks in, And nobody can believe that they heard green when I said blue.
Nobody can process that because that would be their mistake.
They immediately imagine it was a different conversation.
Oh, well, yes, maybe you did say the sky was blue, but why are you saying it's raining?
To which I say, rain was never even in the conversation.
I just said the sky was blue.
You heard it as green.
When I prove to you it's blue and that I said blue, let's say I have a recording or something, you immediately hallucinated that I had said it was raining.
Now, does that example sound like, you know, not the specific sky example, but you put different content in there.
Does that sound like something that really happens?
Like in the actual world, will somebody's memory be rewritten that quickly?
Yes. Yes.
Easily, routinely, and continuously.
That situation is more like the operating system of humans.
We do that instantly, all of us, every one of us, all the time.
We don't know what other people said, because once we've disagreed with them, we either stay in our illusion, Or they prove us wrong and we just spontaneously create a new illusion where we were right all along.
That's how we're wired.
So, once you realize that, the world is a lot less confusing.
So, this question of whether Fauci supported gain-of-function research at Wuhan.
I tell you, this is such a frustrating story because the way it's reported is so poor that we consumers really don't know what that's about.
You kind of think you do, but you don't.
Here's what I think is happening.
I feel as though there is some evidence that Fauci or the NIH, or he may have supported them, they did reportedly, and again, I'm not the expert here, so put a Put a little doubt about anything I say on this topic.
But reportedly, there was some support for gain-of-function, but not for the coronavirus.
I mean, not for this, you know, COVID or whatever it is.
Not for this specific virus.
And it might not have been a gain-of-function for military use.
It might have been gain-of-function just to improve it for, you know, regular purposes or research or something.
So I feel as though the people saying that Fauci did support gain of function are probably correct.
At the same time when he says absolutely not, he's probably correct.
I believe we've hit this weird situation where both sides are saying completely true things, but they're not really on the same topic.
And I think that's the illusion.
I think the illusion is they're on the same topic.
And they're not really on the same topic.
So check that out for me.
Give me a fact check on that.
I think that there was gain of function for a different virus.
So when Fauci denies it, he's denying it for the coronavirus, this version of it.
I think. Which doesn't mean there's anything wrong with Fauci.
So my hypothesis would clear Fauci while also making Rand Paul's accusation true.
Just they weren't on the same topic, I think.
That's my working hypothesis at the moment.
And I see some excellent comments.
For example, wrong!
Wrong! Now, you might be new to me, but when people's comment is just wrong, without any explanation or even detail of which one is wrong, I usually block you.
But I feel it's fair to give you a warning this time, because I don't mention it a lot.
Somebody says, no, it's about funding.
Release of the virus was perfectly timed.
Somebody says. Was it?
I've heard some people say that the CDC allowing the vaccinated to take off their masks in most situations was maybe a White House trick to divert from some of the other things they're saying.
Ashley, you're correct.
I'm a benevolent host.
I suppose that means something.
All right. Oh, yes.
Oh, yes. Somebody says, it's curious how the Hong Kong protests were squashed by the virus.
Yes, that is interesting, isn't it?
Was that China getting lucky?
You know, I'm not on the side that says that China intentionally released a virus.
It's certainly interesting to look at, and you can make an argument that it helped China in some way and hurt other people, so maybe it would have made sense, but I just don't see anybody releasing a virus on their own country to take out America.
I mean, maybe.
Maybe. Do you believe in luck?
Wow, two people asked me about luck.
Here's my take on luck.
It generally believes that you can't change your luck, that luck is just luck.
There's nothing you can do about it.
But that, of course, is completely wrong.
Because you can go where your odds are better.
For example, you have more chance of getting a job if you apply for one, right?
So you can't compare the luck of somebody who didn't apply for any jobs to somebody who applied for a bunch of jobs.
Hey, the person who applied for jobs got jobs.
The person who didn't got no job.
So most of the time, what looks like luck is just people who have not taken the high probability path versus people who took a low probability path and got exactly what you'd expect.
If you're building your skill stack and you're networking and you're staying in a jail and you're staying off of drugs, your odds of luck finding you are really, really good.
So I've told you before that one way to hack luck is to do a lot of stuff.
Just create a lot of energy.
Because if you're doing a lot of stuff and you're making noise and you're creating energy and you're drawing resources to you, your odds of something lucky happening...
In a situation where there's just lots of energy is very good.
Your odds of getting lucky, sitting alone in a cabin in the middle of a field in Montana, very low.
There's no energy there.
There's no probability swirling around you.
There's no possibility.
So although you can't directly control luck as in controlling a coin flip, you can definitely go where there's plenty of it.
And you can stay away from where there isn't much.
Let me give you a concrete example.
And some of you have heard the example, but I'll put it in this context.
When I was working on some startup stuff and getting into the crypto world, I said to myself, gosh, I don't have any immediate need or purpose to know about crypto, nor do I need to necessarily be involved in it.
But I knew it was a high energy area that was growing and there was going to be lots of stuff happening.
And the opportunity for luck was high because there was so much energy.
So if you just go where there's a lot of energy, luck can sort of just find you because it's swirling around all over the place.
So I went quite consciously.
I went where there was all this energy in crypto.
And some of you heard the story that I did a bunch of things, then I walked away from it, and I had forgotten that I'd left a small amount of crypto in one of my crypto wallets.
Didn't even know it was there.
Turned out to be Ethereum.
And Ethereum went on a run.
Last I checked it, I think it probably started around $5,000 or something.
Last I checked it, it was $349,000.
Complete luck. I never made a decision to invest.
In fact, I had bought the Ethereum for transactions.
I was going to spend it, and I just got diverted and forgot I had it there.
So this is a perfect example of going where the energy is, flailing around, and then getting lucky.
And the number of times that That the same person will get lucky?
It happens a lot.
Because that one person is simply following the energy and going wherever there's a lot of it, and they'll get lucky again and again and again.
But if you're not doing anything, if you're not creating any energy, any activity, luck's not going to find you.
So find a high energy place and flail around long enough for luck to find you.
It's worked all of my life.
Whenever I go to a high energy place, luck eventually figures out where I am.
Any chance of you writing another novel?
Interesting. So...
The thing that's closest to a novel that I wrote was called The Religion War, which predicted, 20 years ago when I wrote it, it predicted that there would be armed drones attacking cities and stuff.
Yeah, I think we'll see that. But I don't think...
I don't have an immediate craving to write a novel.
Fiction. I just don't like fiction as much.
The ones I wrote were because they were predictions.
So they weren't just fiction.
They were predictions wrapped up in fiction.
Yeah, I did make...
I mean, so far, I did make something like $350,000 out of $5,000.
Do I have any suggestions for who to follow on Twitter with more liberal left-leaning views?
Let me think. Yes.
Fareed Zakaria on CNN. Smirkanish on CNN. I'll thank you some more.
You know, it's always hard to come up with examples when somebody hits you up like that.
But... Consistently, Jimmy Dore.
Jimmy Dore would be a good one.
Thank you. Suggestion.
Anybody else have some suggestions?
The Weinsteins.
Do they identify as liberal?
I actually don't even know how they identify.
Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi.
Those would be the best.
Is Tim of TimCast Does he identify as liberal?
I don't know. Tim Pool?
I don't know. I feel as if he...
I wouldn't want to label him in any way he doesn't label himself.
Somebody says Liz Cheney.
I get it. Anyway, that's your starter set, and that'll get you going.
