All Episodes
May 30, 2021 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
44:40
Episode 1391 Scott Adams: Nazis Infiltrate School Curriculum, Losing the Connection Between Work and Reward, Fentanyl War, More

My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com Content: "Fentanyl War" Wikipedia page needed CRT, a Nazi school curriculum Losing the work/reward connection Ivermectin, overwhelmingly effective for COVID? Spotting a narcissist: The tells Lori Lightfoot sued by a white reporter ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey, everybody. Come on in.
Come on in. It's time for the best livestream you've ever seen in your life.
And if you would like to enjoy it to its maximum potential, and why wouldn't you?
All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of Tenker Chelsea Stein, a canteen jug or a flask of a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled.
The unparalleled...
What is it? Pleasure.
The dopamine to the end of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And if you haven't heard of it, I don't know where you've been.
Because it's about to rock the whole world.
Now, go. I think I felt the rotation of the earth...
Get a little bit less wobble.
Just a little bit less wobble.
You probably won't notice it.
Well, let's talk about the news.
I mentioned in, I think two days ago, that Matt Gaetz had a...
There was a video clip of Matt Gaetz saying something that sounded like, use your Second Amendment rights to attack the social media platforms, or something like that.
Now it turns out that that was a Rupar, a misleading edit in which they took out the context in which he was talking about the Second Amendment and looked like it was just attached to a different topic.
So here's the interesting part.
My understanding is that Rupar himself actually tweeted the complete video instead of the Rupar version.
So we're into deep irony now.
But that's the point.
The point is that Matt Gaetz was the subject of a RUPAR and did not say, go use your guns against social media platforms.
All right, here's my suggestion for battling the fentanyl war.
So as you know, China's shipping fentanyl products to the cartels, the cartels ship it into the United States, kills 50 to 70,000 people a year.
And it's a war.
And it's a big enough war that we should get it listed on Wikipedia, and as many other places as we can, that would be a start, to get it listed as a war.
Have I ever taught you that persuasion-wise, you can strengthen your persuasion by turning something from a concept that requires a lot of explanation into a label?
So if you can take all of, let's say, immigration and turn it into build the wall, that's good persuasion.
You're taking a complicated thing, making it visual in that case, and taking it down to its most essential, and then branding it.
If you can brand something, people will treat it differently than if you don't brand it.
If it's just a concept, people will just sort of get lost in the concept.
So here's what we need to do.
We need to get a Wikipedia page going for the Fentanyl War.
And it would be a page to describe the ongoing war in which our casualties so far are, I think, higher than Vietnam, lower than World War II so far.
Maybe correct me if I'm wrong.
I think it's the second, no, it'll probably be the third largest loss of life, war-wise.
Now, if we can get it on the list of wars, it's going to make it a lot harder for our government to ignore it.
Now, as you know, Trump pushed pretty hard on this against China.
China made some promises.
Trump apparently believed those promises.
And then nothing happened.
So if we're being honest, Trump did nothing on this topic.
I mean, he tried. So he gets credit for putting some effort into it.
But literally nothing happened.
And Joe Biden apparently is doing even less because he doesn't want to offend China or something.
I don't know. But he's doing even less.
So it's going to be that the public is going to have to take this fight.
And the government, our government, is going to have to catch up.
They're just going to have to catch up to the public.
So let's start this by getting a Wikipedia page.
And by the way, Jimmy Wales, if you're watching this, I do not intend that anybody would falsify anything.
So when I'm talking about getting this on Wikipedia, I mean legitimately.
It's got to be legitimate.
It's not a prank.
It's not just for the heck of it.
It's not for laughs.
It's not illegitimate.
It's a war, and we can call it that.
Now, there's a war on drugs.
There's a war on things.
Things get branded, and that branded name does become the title of the Wikipedia article.
So there's no reason that we can't use that approach To force our government to do what it should have done, which is discontinue diplomacy with China until this is fixed, at the very least.
You could argue we should discontinue diplomacy until they stop mistreating the Uyghurs, but if we're being more selfish, we should go hardest on the things that affect us most directly.
So let's do that. Speaking of persuasion, I'm a little bit tired of referring to groups like Black Lives Matter and Critical Race Theory, because those are examples of good branding from the perspective of the people who would promote those points of view.
That's really good branding.
I've talked about that before.
But I think if you think those things are actually just racism, and a lot of people do, That the best approach would be just to call it a Nazi effort.
Because we are in a country in which comparing things to Nazism and comparing things to Hitler is common.
And apparently it works.
And the left has been using that technique against Republicans quite effectively for years.
But I would think that those who are trying to get critical race theory out of schools You should say that a Nazi ideology has infected our schools, and you'd like to get rid of the Nazism in the schools.
Now, is critical race theory well intended?
Well, I would think it depends on each individual.
I would imagine that most people who are talking about critical race theory Have in their mind good intentions.
Making the world a better place.
I think that's real. I don't think every leader has the same impression as every citizen.
Leaders tend to look out for themselves first, and the public second.
Unfortunately, most leaders do.
And so, from the leader's perspective, I don't know if it's some kind of grand Marxist plan, people say.
I don't think it matters.
I think what matters is if children are being taught to treat people differently based on race, it's a Nazi philosophy.
And if you get enough Nazi philosophy in your school system, don't be surprised if the kids turn into Nazis because that's how you train them.
So if you want to get rid of the Nazism in schools, then you have to get rid of the racial training and maybe replace it with strategy or something that would actually Help everybody, instead of something that's clearly making the world a worse place.
Even if the intentions are good.
I saw a tweet by Twitter user Armandum.
He was talking about calculating reparations.
And he said in a tweet, I trust society to do it, talking about reparations, once they learn the difference in wealth for black people comes from the redistribution of the wealth generated by their labor.
Due to slavery, Jim Crow, and currently existing racial discrimination.
And so here again is that problem of a concept.
When the problem is described sort of as a concept with the system and things connected to other things, it just doesn't grab you, does it?
It just feels sort of technical and doesn't get your blood boiling in any particular way.
But here's my comment.
How exactly is distribution of the wealth generated by the labor?
Let's just think this through.
Let's take the assumption.
That slavery did generate a lot of wealth.
So far we all agree, right?
Slavery generated a lot of wealth.
That wealth primarily went to the plantation owners, but of course they purchased things and therefore that wealth got distributed into the larger society.
So in theory, even people who had no slaves were probably selling products to plantation owners or buying their products and getting some kind of economic benefit from the fact that other people had slaves.
So yes, I think you could make the argument that slavery caused white people to get rich and black people not to get rich because they couldn't share in the wealth.
But is that a reason for reparations?
What would be the proper comparison?
If you were going to do a comparison to figure out how much reparations or if reparations, and I've argued before that the fair comparison is black Americans who descended from slavery, and how are they doing now in today's world?
What's their current situation?
And then the comparison is that same group descended from slavery in the United States compared to the people, let's say family members, who did not get on slave ships and just lived in Africa and lived out their life.
How are they doing? And are they doing better than the people who had a much worse situation?
Because really we're looking at the descendants, right?
So that's the argument, is what's happening at the moment because of the descendants.
And I think that's the proper argument.
The proper comparison.
If you compare the wrong things, of course you'll get the wrong answer.
And I think that the people who have good intentions about reparation are comparing the wrong thing.
Because let's say the...
Is it not true that the money created by slavery did go disproportionately to white people?
That part seems obvious.
But... At this point, in 2021, isn't that total wealth that was created also, at least some of it, is going to black people, right?
Because they're part of society.
society is stronger for having had a stronger economy in the past.
So black...
Yeah, okay.
All right. So that's my take on that, is that there's no way to calculate reparations unless you compare to the right comparison.
Ross Dutat?
I don't know how to pronounce his last name.
Douthat? Douthat?
But anyway, Ross writes for the New York Times.
He was talking about the lab leak theory and how it was completely politicized.
People just took sides politically and basically ignored common sense, facts, information, and the media just basically took sides with the left and figured that if Tom Cotton was saying anything about the lab being someplace you should look at for the source of the virus, That because he's a Republican, that that must be the wrong side.
So the media lined up on the left.
Or as Ross says, put the possibility in the QAnon box and leave it there.
But he had a sentence that's just sort of a killer summary sentence.
I just wanted to share that with you.
So he talks about it, and then he says...
That this idea of basically treating every Republican idea like it's crazy.
He says, which is only a good rule for a truth-seeking profession if you assume the day will never come when Tom Cotton has a point.
In other words, if you're just automatically assuming that Republicans are wrong no matter what, you've discounted the possibility that Tom Cotton will ever be right.
And unfortunately for the left, Tom Cotton has been more right than just about anybody, at least in the past year or so.
I haven't been tracking him much before that.
But I feel like he's one of the rightest people working right now, so keep that in mind.
There's some research showing that people are...
Trusting experts less.
And maybe the pandemic has been the biggest problem there.
So a new study said that fewer than 4 in 10 adults report having a great deal or quite a lot of trust in the NIH. Our National Institute of Health, only 40% of the public even trusts them.
That's the National Institute for Health.
40% of the public trusts them.
See any problem here?
The FDA? 37% trust them.
37%. This is the group keeping us safe.
37% trust them.
And the Department of Health and Human Services?
33% trust them.
Now, is this a gigantic problem?
Or is it a great awakening?
Which allows us to see the world more clearly.
Right? Because it's not entirely clear to me that this is bad news.
Is it bad news that the citizens no longer trust our authorities and our experts?
Even in health issues, they don't trust them.
Is it good or is it bad?
I feel like it's a mixed bag, right?
You could easily come up with a scenario, like a pandemic, where maybe it's bad.
Because if the experts get it right, the public doesn't trust them, well, that's the worst-case scenario.
So that's bad.
But what about the fact that the experts are legitimately wrong all the time?
No, not all the time, but you know what I mean.
Often. They're often wrong.
So what do you do with that?
And how often are they wrong?
Well, if it's in the fog of war, probably more wrong than right.
And when do you know if they're finally right?
Because science is a process of being wrong until you're right.
When do you know you're right?
When do you know you're done?
Are you halfway to done?
And now that's all you need to know?
Or are you all the way to done and you're really done?
I would say that we've had a great awakening about the inability to trust Experts, because they're co-opted by a lot of things.
Sometimes they're just wrong.
Sometimes the news reports them incorrectly.
So trusting any of that seems like a gigantic mistake.
But it's certainly the first place you want to look.
It's one thing to blindly trust the experts, which seems stupid, frankly, at this point.
But it's another thing to ignore them.
You don't want to ignore them.
My guess is the experts are probably right more often than wrong.
I don't even know if that's true.
How can the vaccination numbers not be fudged if thus many people mistrust the experts?
Well, the answer is that they're not trusting the experts.
They're trusting themselves.
So people are looking at the totality of the evidence and just making their own decision.
I don't know that it's a case of trusting the experts.
So when I decided to get the vaccination, I'm going to have my second shot any day now, Tuesday I think, When I decided to get the vaccination, it wasn't because the experts told me to.
It's because I looked at lots of different stuff, and the totality of it, I said, on balance, I think I'm guessing.
We're all guessing, because you don't know how you're going to respond to it.
You don't know if you would have been infected anyway.
You don't know if you would have gotten the long haul, so you're still guessing.
But I'm definitely not trusting the experts.
That did not filter into my decision.
Well, there's a report that...
This was in RT, Russia Today, so I'm assuming it's real.
But of course, Russia Today is not your source of dependable news.
But this particular one looks like it might be real.
Apparently, there's a report that there were autonomous...
Drones hunting down rebels and killing them, possibly without human direction.
Meaning that the drones go up and they just sort of look for things to kill.
They have a bomb on them, and they're kind of suicide bomb drones.
And apparently, let's see who it was, the Libyan National Army, they were...
They were trying to rout some rebels, and when the rebels distributed and were running away, apparently swarms of drones followed the rebels and waited for times to attack, and then dive-bombed and blew up.
Now, there's some thinking that they were actually just programmed to shoot anybody they found in a certain area, or to blow them up.
And... I'm sort of doubting whether this story is true, but it will be true.
Whether it's true now, or it will be true, it's definitely here.
And that's pretty close to Skynet.
If the artificial intelligence is making the decision of what people to kill, the reporting is this might be the first time that robots have decided which humans to kill.
I don't think it's real. I think it's premature.
These were probably controlled by humans.
But there's no reason they couldn't be fully autonomous.
I mean, the technology exists, right?
But it would be robots deciding, if you can use that word, deciding which humans to kill.
Looks like we're there.
There's a story that I've been avoiding so hard that I'm starting to feel guilty about it.
It's the story of ivermectin.
And the reason I've avoided it is because lots of people tweet at me and say, hey, here's a story.
Here's a doctor. Here's somebody saying ivermectin is a good thing.
As you know, that means nothing.
Here's a study. Is it real?
I don't know. I don't know.
I could look at studies all day.
I wouldn't know if they're real.
I wouldn't know if they made a mistake.
I could look at them all.
They wouldn't mean anything to me.
Would they mean anything to you?
Probably not. I think you need a certain level of qualification, scientific understanding, etc., before you can look at a study and know it tells you anything useful.
I mean, I talk about them all the time like I actually know, but when it comes down to actually Is this a good study?
I'm not the guy to ask, right?
But, apparently Brett Weinstein has weighed into this, and he is retweeting a good tweet thread that you'll see in my Twitter thread today.
Look at the top, near the top.
And apparently there are 20 randomized clinical trials that are randomized, you know, the good kind, a randomized trial.
And that they overwhelmingly show reductions in mortality when used in adequate doses and in patients who are early enough in the disease.
Where it doesn't work seems to be maybe later when people have a worse disease.
And so I said to myself, well, finally, if Brett Weinstein is saying that this looks pretty convincing, and at least he's qualified, right?
So there's somebody who can look at the data, and nobody knows for sure if the data's right, but at least looking for obvious errors, right?
So the fact that Brett went into this hard today on Twitter changes my view.
It changes my view.
Because I was willing to believe that ivermectin was just another one of the things that people hope works but doesn't.
But now there's enough...
I would say there is enough mental firepower aimed in this direction that now I'm going to take it seriously.
That's a strange comment that I'm going to ignore.
And... So as soon as I convinced myself, wow, there are 20 randomized clinical trials, and apparently part of the problem is that none of them are big enough individually to sell the story.
But when you have lots of randomized trials, and they seem to be reasonably good quality...
The only problem is there are not enough subjects.
Sometimes you can add them together and do a meta-analysis and say, well, this study was small, but if you add it with the other studies that are small, to the extent that any of the studies were done right, or hopefully most of them were done right, it should give you a result.
And apparently when you do that, the result is quite overwhelmingly that ivermectin works, and it works a lot, like 70% reduction in, I don't know, hospitalizations or something.
So it's a big deal. It's not a small effect.
And it's very clear in the data, apparently.
So I'm all sold, and I'm saying, well, I don't understand science, but finally I feel like I have an opinion.
Not that ivermectin works, but we should definitely be taking it seriously.
It took about two minutes for one of my favorite critics or skeptics to weigh in, Anatoly Lubarsky.
I talk about him all the time.
He has destroyed more things that I believed were true than maybe anybody except Andres Beckhaus.
The two of them just eviscerate the bad scientific claims or the illogical claims, because they're just better at thinking than other people.
So this is Anatoly responding to that tweet thread.
And I just hate that this is happening.
He says, I see only two RCT studies here.
In other words, mentioned in the thread.
One from Bangladesh, another one from Colombia.
Both with small number of participants.
What are the other 18?
And all of a sudden I'm like, damn it!
Damn it! Damn it!
Now, I want to believe that there are 20 studies...
That are worth looking at together as a package.
I want to believe that.
And I think Brett does, Brett Weinstein.
It looks like he believes it. And he's probably looked into it at a more useful way than I have.
But where are the other 18?
If they're not in a tweet thread, or even a link to see the other 18, do you believe it?
And the problem is you can't.
I was so convinced.
And already I'm back to skepticism.
I'm already back there.
Because if you're going to try to make a case that there are 20 studies and you don't link to them or link to somebody who links to them, I'm out.
I'm sorry. I'm out.
You can't refer to data and not link to it and expect me to buy into it.
Now, Brett Weinstein may have seen these, so he may have actually seen the other studies and have a better impression of it.
But I haven't. I haven't.
So do I just take the word of these people who seem smart?
I'm just going to move ivermectin up to the maybe category.
Maybe. We should look into it.
All right. Mark-Ellen Bouver tweeted today, He said, we went from gratitude for a 9 to 5, meaning a job, to absolute disdain in one generation.
What happened? Entitlement or enlightenment?
And I have a theory that I've had since, I don't know, a long time ago, which is that everything went wrong when we started using direct deposit.
Now, this is not the whole story, but I feel like it's part of it.
And it goes like this.
I remember, so I'm of an age when I used to get a paycheck, and then I remember the time when my employer, there was a bank, said, hey, we've got this new thing where the pay will just go directly into your checking account, and you'll never get a check.
And I said, well, okay, that's more efficient.
That's way more efficient.
Okay, I signed up for it.
Almost immediately, I lost the connection between my work and my payoff.
The payoff just seemed to be a thing that just happens.
Every week I'd check my account and there was more money in there.
So they became separated.
There was work, and then there was money, but there was no point where your boss would hand you a check and say, in effect, thanks for the work.
Because that was the point that connected the work and the money.
And I said when it happened...
This is going to be a disaster.
Because if you're trying to teach a dog a trick, try doing it without a treat.
Try teaching your dog to shake hands and sit and everything, but no treats, no reward.
What you will find is that humans and dogs are pretty similar.
If you don't give people a treat, they stop doing the trick and they lose the connection.
Your dog doesn't do your trick because it loves you.
It was trained by the treats, and that's it.
You take away the paycheck, the physical paycheck, and you took away the dog treat.
And you still want the dog to do the trick.
Now, that's not the whole problem.
I would say that also, another thing that I've noticed in my current life, I would like to see if any of you have noticed this.
When I was a kid, There was never any question about whether I would work as a kid.
No question. I was definitely going to be mowing some laws and shoveling some snow, raking some leaves, moving furniture.
I was going to be working on the farm.
My family had a farm connection.
I was going to be working.
And to me, that was just understood.
I don't remember it ever even being up for debate.
There was no time in my childhood when I thought I wouldn't get a job at 14.
You know, a dishwasher and, you know, a busser and all that stuff.
But now fast forward to 2021.
Those of you who have children or grandchildren in your life, how many of you have children or grandchildren in which the expectation is they won't work?
Never. Just won't.
Because they don't have time, and there's so much pressure on them, and you're only young once, and maybe the family has enough money, the kid doesn't have to work.
My nieces do nothing.
I just want to see in the comments, here, I see a no, I see a nope.
Now this is more a conservative audience, so I would imagine most of you are putting your kids to work.
Somebody says, too much school to do.
Right. That became the new excuse.
There's too much schoolwork. I won't be able to get good grades if I have a job.
My kids do nothing.
Same. She wants to work.
My kids didn't.
Not mine. Already working.
Okay. Both kids worked through the pandemic.
My kids worked. Yeah, so I think maybe this group has more workers in it than others, because I think the conservative mindset gets passed on pretty quickly.
Yeah, but you know plenty who do not.
So those of you, your own kids might be working, so I think this group is not exactly a random sample.
Sky Goddess Sue says, can't get a kid on my street to mow my lawn.
Right? Do you know how easy it was to get a kid to mow your lawn when I was a kid?
We were fighting for that work.
That was good work. Mowing lawns was about as good as you could get.
Yeah, so I think what we've done is we've ruined the work-reward connection.
Certainly we've ruined it for kids, and we're ruining it for adults as well.
There's a topic that I'm going to return to a lot.
And I know that you don't like too much something that sounds like a repeat, but I'm doing this for a purpose.
I need to drill this in.
This will help you so much if you learn to recognize narcissism in your daily life and especially on social media.
Now, what I learned recently, just to once again confess my earlier ignorance, is that I used to think narcissism was just people who thought they were great.
Now, that's real, that exists, but it's not really a problem.
It's not a mental illness to think you're better than other people think you are, or even to think you could do more than you can do.
Because I've argued that that very feeling has propelled me to success.
I think it helped Trump propel him to success, too.
The part I didn't know about until recently is that there's a constellation of behaviors which are almost like a robotic programming that if you put the inputs into this set of personality characteristics, the output will be 100% predictable, which I'm not sure is true for other people.
Maybe it is, but I've never noticed it.
And once you realize the predictability of it, and then you recognize the tells, what you can learn to do is take the most annoying people in your life, the narcissists, that you thought were just trolls, you thought they were just jerks, you thought maybe they were just in a bad mood that day, you thought maybe they were coming after you because there was political bias, you thought they were paid trolls, and maybe some of them are some of those things.
But mostly, Once you learn to recognize the signs, and I'll tell you a few of them, once you recognize them, you can just write them off as robots.
Let me ask you this.
I said this before.
Imagine it's a few years from now and there's an actual robot that works in your house and does the ironing and some other stuff.
It's just a robot. But it's got some AI and it talks.
And let's say the robot insults you.
Are you going to take it personally?
Not really. Because the robot is just a robot.
It just did whatever its programming told it to do.
You're not going to take that personally, are you?
Let me give you another example.
If a human being walks up to you and grabs you by the crotch, what's your first reaction?
Ah! Right?
You're offended. You're literally molested.
Psychologically, you're going to be damaged, if only a little bit, depending on your situation.
But definitely damaged. But, suppose you sit on a bicycle seat.
The bicycle seat is all up in your junk.
But is the bicycle seat raping you?
Do you feel molested?
Do you feel insulted? Do you feel violated?
No. Because the bicycle seat is mindless.
And you chose to touch it.
It has no psychological import.
You can learn to treat the narcissist like the bicycle seat.
The bicycle seat is all up in your junk, but it's irrelevant.
It's just irrelevant.
It's just a bicycle seat.
It doesn't think, it doesn't act according to anything that would look like free will.
So here's how to spot one.
Your narcissists are basically robots with no empathy, but their programming is so specific that they will respond in very, very obvious ways.
So here's somebody who is in a tweet.
I guess we don't need to name who they are.
He says, a curious thing I've noticed when talking with most of my liberal friends, who are super tolerant, is that I constantly have to hold back numerical facts and other true statements to avoid making them upset at me.
That's your tell. So the tell is his friends, not the guy who tweeted.
We can't tell about him. But he's tweeting that when he gives just facts and true statements, his friends don't react with them with counter facts and things like that.
They get angry. They get angry.
And if they get angry, that's a narcissist.
Let me tell you what somebody would say if...
Let's say I made a claim about you.
And I said, your information on...
Pick a topic, it doesn't matter, climate change, whatever, is all wrong.
And I'm going to show you what's wrong with this data here.
What would be your first reaction?
Because most of you have a strong opinion about climate change.
But what if somebody had something to show you That clearly showed you were wrong and it was from a good source.
What would be your first reaction to that?
If your first reaction is, well, that must be wrong, and this guy's an idiot, you're a narcissist.
But you don't know it, because narcissists don't know they're narcissists.
By the way, that's the most fascinating thing about it.
A narcissist doesn't know.
They have no idea that they are one.
So it would be like Blade Runner where the replicants don't know the replicants.
They think they're people. So if you accuse one of the replicants or the narcissist of being a narcissist, they'll just get angry and they'll cut you out of their life.
But suppose you accuse somebody who's not a narcissist of being a narcissist.
How would they react?
Would they react with anger?
Well, they wouldn't like it.
But I'll bet they'd ask you for some details.
If you accuse a non-narcissist of being a narcissist, they're not going to leave the room.
They're going to say, wait a minute, what are you talking about?
Like, give me an example.
What have I done? And what is the definition?
And how does that definition match what I've done?
Because I'd be interested to know if I'm one of those.
Right? I'd be interested to know.
So, one of the most accurate ways to tell...
Somebody gets mad at the messenger instead of dealing with the argument.
Anybody who gets mad at the messenger and runs away is a narcissist.
They're simply not able to deal with the fact that their point of view has been annihilated, so they run away.
The other things they will do will be immediately forget what you said, And act like you said something else and misinterpret you.
Straw man you. I used to think that that was people who had bad reading comprehension.
So I used to believe, and when I say used to, I mean just a few weeks ago.
I used to think, oh, they're just reading what I wrote wrong.
Maybe I could have been clearer.
It's none of that. They're actually having a spontaneous cognitive dissonance because you've destroyed their world view.
And they're remembering something that didn't happen as a result to put their worldview back in order so they can still be right.
The other things they do is they will change the topic to something bad that you did once you've called them out.
So they'll go after you, they'll divert, they'll attack, and then they'll get really mad and then they'll go away.
They'll block you, they'll never answer you again, they'll leave you, whatever.
And here's the important part.
And I didn't understand this until I saw it from enough experts.
You can't change this.
Now, I believe maybe I could because I'm a trained hypnotist.
Because I don't know how often a trained hypnotist has ever worked on trying to change any of this behavior.
But all of the experts say it can't be changed even a little bit.
Think about that. It can't be changed.
There's no treatment.
There's nothing. Do you know what the treatment would look like?
Alright, I'd like to treat you for your narcissistic behavior.
I don't have any narcissistic behavior.
No, you do. Here are all the examples of all the things you do, and we need to treat that.
I didn't do any of those things.
No, you did. Here's like video proof.
Here's your text messages.
And in fact, you did it five minutes ago right in front of me.
So I'll add that to the list.
So it's completely proven that you do these things.
Now let's talk about how to treat it.
I didn't do any of those things.
You do those things.
You do those things.
You're doing it to me now.
You're gaslighting me. A narcissist will always accuse you of gaslighting them because they're gaslighting you.
So you look for those things.
You look for the, are they gaslighting you by telling you that the thing you know is true isn't true.
That's like the classic way to do it.
Trump lost to a less worthy person.
I don't know, is that related to this conversation?
So anyway, that's your lesson for the day.
Realize that the narcissists are basically empathy-free robots, and they can't hurt you.
Once you recognize them, they can't hurt you.
They're just robots.
They don't have the ability to modify their behavior.
If you see somebody who can modify their behavior, not a narcissist.
It's conclusive. So I submit that there is a narcissist test and it goes like this.
You accuse somebody of being one and you give them, let's say, three examples that fit the definition.
If they flip out on you and get really angry and refuse to talk to you after that, they are one.
If they say, what are you talking about, and get into the details and actually engage on it, Without ever getting mad at you or walking away?
Definitely not one.
Definitely not. Rob says, what circumstances produce a narcissist?
I'm not sure that there's no genetic component, but the experts say it's based on a bad childhood experience.
So something in the childhood caused them to have low self-esteem, and low self-esteem fuels all of these behaviors.
I'm not so sure that people aren't born with a low self-esteem.
It seems to be something that could be genetic, so I don't know.
Yeah, attachment issues, etc.
All right. Apparently, Lori Lightfoot is being sued by a white reporter.
Well, it's about time.
Lori Lightfoot said there are too many white people in the media, I guess.
And so she had said she only wanted to give interviews to non-white people.
Which caused a white reporter to sue her.
How would the white reporter lose?
I mean, I don't know what law is involved here.
But it seems pretty clear that it's racial discrimination.
How could he even debate that, really?
So I think this is good.
And I think Lori Lightfoot falls into the Nazi philosophy of treating people differently by race.
And so let's call it Nazi.
Let's call it what it is.
Critical race theory? Nazi philosophy.
Not talking to white reporters?
Nazi philosophy.
Now, I'm not saying they are Nazis.
I'm just saying the similarity, the racial bias, is the main driver of Nazi behavior, and it's the main driver of a lot of this stuff.
All right. Just looking at a couple of your Comments here.
What about systemic racism?
I see the question, but I don't know what you mean by that.
Narcissism is number one trending on Twitter.
That's not true, is it? It's not trending at exactly the same time I'm saying this, is it?
Let me just see. I can't see it on my app.
Alright, I'll check my browser. Oh!
Hello. That means I gotta go.
Export Selection