Episode 1414 Scott Adams: Find Out What Level of Awareness You Are at While Simultaneously Sipping
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
FAKE NEWS from The Guardian
Dr. Peter Daszak...less than helpful
Christopher Rufo shreds Washington Post hit piece
Bari Weiss...the books are already burning
Being WRONG is the engine of America
Whiteboard Micro-Lesson: Levels of Awareness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, wow! This is going to be the best coffee with Scott Adams of all time, no doubt about it.
It's the first time I tried to talk today.
It's not going well, but it's going to get better.
So, I've been traveling and not doing a lot of sleeping, so I just stayed up all night last night, and today I'm ready to go.
I'm going to adjust my time zone a little bit, and here we go.
Now, I want to warn you about what's coming.
There's going to be an embedded micro lesson on determining your level of awareness.
Some of you might not like it, but the magic here is that the stories we're going to start with are all going to build toward that point.
Watch it happen.
It's going to be like magic.
Later, I'll pick out the micro lesson and publish it individually on the Locals platform, because subscribers of Locals get a little bit extra.
Now, before we begin, would you like to do the simultaneous sip?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure you would.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice of dine, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind, fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and watch it happen.
Now, go.
Let me tell you, as much as I enjoyed this trip, it was to Santorini, Greece, I love being back in America.
So it turns out I really like this country and I like being in it.
And being back on American soil feels really good.
So let me tell you some stories.
Number one, the JetBlue terminal at JFK yesterday was more packed than I have ever seen any terminal ever.
I mean, it was just a crush of people.
You couldn't get near anything.
You couldn't tell that there was a line.
It was just this mass of people.
And, you know, there have been some predictions that there will be this rubber band effect.
All the people who couldn't travel last year, you know, they're going to double up and start traveling like crazy.
Now, I know that American Airlines actually canceled flights because they couldn't get enough employees.
So the airports are not working at what I would call 100% efficiency.
But boy, is there demand.
So JetBlue was just through the roof yesterday.
Literally, I've never seen an airport that packed.
And honestly, it was a little difficult.
Not just getting things done, which was also difficult, but the psychological impact of being in a massive crowd after a year of social isolation It's hard.
It's actually just psychologically hard.
Not in a medical sense.
I wasn't worried about anything medically.
I'm all vaccinated, blah, blah.
But just the social experience of being surrounded by people was pretty intense.
And it's going to take a little while for us to work our way back into the social head.
Well, here's another reason to miss...
President Trump, I think this is real, by the way.
Somebody tell me if this is fake news, but I believe he actually put out a press release on Father's Day saying, Happy Father's Day to all, including the radical left, rhinos, and other losers of the world.
Hopefully, eventually, everyone will come together.
Now, there's just nobody else in the world Who can be this interesting this consistently?
So I'm seeing some confirmations that it's real.
I swear, Trump doesn't know how to be uninteresting.
After years of being interesting, both good and bad, I suppose you could say, he just doesn't know how to turn it off.
He's just perpetually interesting, no matter what you think of him.
But I love the fact that he could put out a statement like this, and it's barely news.
Let's see. Oh, interesting.
Robert's asking me how many precursors for the talent stacks and system stuff is in ancient Greece.
I don't know. I'm not aware of any precursors, but one assumes that not every idea is original, right?
There's always some precursor.
The Panda Tribune, if you're not following that account on Twitter, you should.
The Panda Tribune.
The handle there is at Panda Tribune.
And he tweeted at me a video of my face superimposed over Chuck Norris doing a bunch of martial arts.
And here's the thing.
It's really convincing.
For a relatively low-tech...
I'm sure it was a low-tech relative to, say, Hollywood and CGI. And it's pretty convincing.
If you didn't know that my face had been substituted for Chuck Norris, it would kind of look like it was really me.
So how close are we to being completely fooled By a video, we're there.
We're at the point where the fake video can be created by people who just have access to ordinary equipment, and it's going to look real.
How long before you don't need to hire real actors for movies?
We're there. We're there.
You already don't need real actors.
You could simulate them, except for obviously getting sued for doing it.
But technically, there's nothing to stop you from doing it right now.
Now, I told you that each of these stories is building to a larger point.
We're building to the micro-lesson.
You won't see yet how they fit together, but watch me pull this mosaic off.
All right. Larry Kudlow is saying that Biden gave up energy sovereignty, American energy sovereignty.
And, you know, the argument here is that agreeing to the Paris climate Accords is going to mean closing pipelines and not drilling in Alaska and doing a bunch of things that Trump would have aggressively done, but Biden is pulling back on.
Now, here's the reframe on this that I think needs to happen.
Whoever has the best energy policy is sort of going to Be the winner in the world of economics and power and even defense.
So when we think of this energy programs and we think about being more green, we really need to think of this as a national security issue.
Because the richest country pretty much wins the wars, right?
One way or another. They either buy off people or they bribe people or they have a better military.
But the richest country wins pretty consistently.
And if you don't have a robust energy industry, you're probably not going to be that country forever.
So the energy being probably the main component of a good economy, that plus tech, I would suppose.
But if you don't have energy sovereignty, you're really giving up a lot militarily.
And we don't talk about it that way.
So here's an example where the way you look at it, Can completely change what you think is important.
If you're looking at it as climate change, well, you know, then Biden's got an argument.
You could disagree with it, but it's an argument.
If you look at it as a homeland protection issue, there's no argument.
As soon as you say this is also self-defense, we're done.
You need the best energy Program that you can get for self-defense.
That one's not debatable.
Now, I suppose you could say if you're a nuclear power, you've always got that option, but you don't want to be talking about that option.
All right, here's a way to know that your opinions are assigned to you, not you necessarily, specifically, but that the public's opinions are assigned to them.
And here's a classic, perfect example of that.
So apparently, as M Hackman tweeted, the number of unaccompanied kids in CBP custody, border custody, is at 1,040, the highest it's been since April 27th.
So we've got over 1,000 kids in custody at the border.
How big of a story would that be if Trump were president?
Well, it's a big story either way, right?
So I think we would agree, yeah, it's a national headline, either way.
But it's not really even close to the same amount of energy, right?
The energy that the news would be putting into the story, if Trump was behind it, would be hair on fire.
The energy that's put into the story with Biden in charge, eh, let's mention it.
Here's some data.
Here's some statistics.
This is really clear evidence that your opinions are assigned to you.
Because if your opinions were not assigned to you, they would look the same regardless of who the president was.
So, are you seeing the mosaic coming together yet?
You will in a minute.
So Adam, a user on Twitter named Adam, asked me this question today.
He says, is there any scenario Where the intelligence agencies don't run the government from the shadows eventually.
Is there any possibility that intelligence agencies don't end up controlling the government?
And my answer was, not in the long run.
In the long run, they have to.
It's basically guaranteed in the long run.
Because they would have the tools to do it, they would have the motivation to do it, perfectly within their Within their mission to keep the country safe as they see it.
So there's a lot of subjectivity in it as to what is morally right and what is just common sense and what is just a smart way to manipulate the public and what is just a good, sensible way to influence topics.
There's a very fine line between a sensible way to influence a topic and just controlling the government from your intelligence agencies.
So given that the intelligence agencies have the motivation and the tools, and here's the important part, lots of different people involved.
So if somebody tries to influence the government and it doesn't work and they get caught or outed or fired, there's always somebody else.
So sooner or later, the intelligence agencies are going to peck away at the levers of government until they own it.
Because they know how.
And they have a reason to do it.
And they have all the time in the world because they exist for years.
So the part we don't know is when it happens.
We don't know if it's already happened, probably has, or it's in our future.
But it's guaranteed.
You can't avoid it.
I can't even imagine a scenario where it wouldn't happen.
The only caveat to that is that the intelligence agencies don't care about most topics.
So most things are not going to be influenced by intelligence agencies because they don't care.
They don't care about picking up the garbage.
They don't care about the national bird.
They just care about some specific topics and, of course, they're going to be in control of those eventually.
So here's some fake news from The Guardian.
They've got this story that is just so over-the-top, ridiculously fake news.
That it should be embarrassing to be them, but I doubt it.
So they've got this story about some guy in prison who says he's the one who gave Trump the idea of drinking bleach for coronavirus.
Now, first of all, Trump never said drink bleach for coronavirus.
That's fake news level one.
Level two is that if that fake news were true, That Trump had suggested actual drinking bleach, which never happened, that there's somebody claiming that he's the one who gave him the bleach, and he actually drank some of it.
Now, nothing about this story is true.
It's just so obviously, laughably, ridiculously fake, but it's published in The Guardian.
It's published just like Real News.
And once you see how often large publications will print things that are just obviously made up.
I mean, you don't have to be a genius to know this one's made up.
You don't have to have any inside information.
You can just look at it and say, oh, that's crazy.
Just keep that in mind as we continue to put the mosaic together.
Did you see that the McCloskeys, the couple who...
Had the AR-15 in a pistol and were defending their home against, I think it was Black Lives Matter protesters.
And I guess they must have pled guilty to some lesser charge, which involved them giving up their weapons.
So they had to turn in their AR-15 and, I don't know, probably the pistol.
But here's the weird part.
They had to turn in their weapons, but there was no prohibition about them driving to a gun store and buying new weapons.
So they did. That was their penalty.
Their penalty is, we're taking your weapons away, but nothing to stop them from immediately buying replacement weapons, which they not only did, but they took selfies.
Hey, here's us buying our new replacement weapons, which we can totally do legally.
And the whole time I was looking at this, I thought to myself, that guy's a good lawyer.
Can you imagine a better legal outcome than, well, we're going to take your weapons away, but you can buy replacement weapons right away, and you're going to get some publicity, and you'll be more popular than ever.
He is a good, good lawyer.
It's not a coincidence he's rich and lives in a big house.
Alright, here's a simulation alert.
Apparently there's a Democrat senator named White House.
This is his actual last name, White House.
Now, of course you think he's going to run for president because his last name is White House.
But it also has white right in the name.
And interestingly, the New York Post is reporting that he's been a member for decades in an allegedly all-white private beach club.
And he's a progressive, so this is an extra hypocritical story.
But I'm going to say put a pin in that one.
I think this smells a little bit too much like fake news.
Meaning, is there really a beach club in 2021 who actually has literally says we're not going to let in anybody who isn't white?
Is that literally happening?
Or is it simply where they live Unless you're rich, and unless you know about it, you're not going to be in this club.
So maybe it just is a natural outcome of who they are and what they're doing.
Which one is it? I'm a little skeptical about this story.
Could be true. So I'm not going to rule out the possibility that it's exactly right.
The New York Post has a pretty good record lately of getting stuff right that other people are getting wrong, right?
Wouldn't you agree? So the New York Post has been kind of solid on some of their scoops.
But this story doesn't quite, quite fit.
So keep an open mind about this.
But the simulation alert is that his name is White House, and he was allegedly in an all-white club.
I don't believe it.
All right. Rasmussen had a poll.
Asked, how important is freedom of religion to a healthy society?
82% said very or somewhat important.
Remember I told you that you can always get a solid 25% or so who will answer any poll in a way that's just crazy?
And I think that 25% could be 20, could be a little more than 25, but every poll seems to have this little solid 20-25% of people who either didn't understand the question, or were intentionally trying to ruin the poll, or are amazingly stupid, or some combination of those things.
It's just every poll. So it's almost as if you get a result that says 82% of people say anything, you should think of it as 100%.
Because the other people, they're just, I don't know, what's wrong?
Who in the world, in the United States, would say that freedom of religion is not important?
Really? Really, you can get almost one out of five Americans, likely voters, who will literally say that freedom of religion isn't terribly important?
I'm not sure that that's true so much as it is a snapshot of civilization.
Which is you can get 20% of people to be wrong about anything.
If you said, oxygen isn't important for human survival, 20% of respondents would say, I don't know, I think oxygen is not real.
I think oxygen is probably just a rumor.
So, 80% is 100% in my view.
So, British doctor Peter Daszak Who got a bunch of people together to sign a letter that got printed in the Lancet Medical Journal saying that the Wuhan lab leak theory was not credible.
Turns out he got fired.
He got fired from the UN Commission investigating COVID because not only was he maybe not helpful, he was the opposite of helpful and apparently he had long ties with the lab and And basically did something that, on the surface, looks like the least ethical thing I've ever seen in my life.
Right? Now, again, there might be something to the story that we don't know that would soften that opinion, but I don't know what it would be.
It literally looks like the least ethical thing ever.
I mean, you'd have to go back to...
You know, industry suppressing information that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer.
I mean, you'd have to dig pretty deep to find something less ethical than what happened here, apparently.
So keep that in mind when you're thinking to yourself, Well, those experts told me what to think.
He was an expert, and he got a hundred other experts to sign something that wasn't even close to true.
Not even close.
So, here's a little story that proves the Gelman amnesia.
Let's see, what do you call it?
A theory? Or a concept?
And the idea is that if you happen to be the topic of a news report...
You know that it's fake, but the people reading it don't know because they don't know what you know.
Or if you're specifically the gill man, amnesia, is if you're an expert in a field, you can tell the stories about that field are bullshit, but you can't tell that the other stories are untrue because you're not an expert.
So here's an example of that.
Most of you might be familiar with Christopher Ruffo, who has been doing amazing work uncovering Some of the race-related education in businesses and schools.
Naturally, he became a target for the left because he was doing such a good job of exposing the, let's say, clumsy and or dangerous ways that race was being taught, both in corporations and in schools.
So the Washington Post does this hit piece on him and He basically just strangled them.
I've never seen anybody beat the media as convincingly.
So here's what Christopher Ruffo tweeted about it.
He said, winning. The Washington Post's hit piece against me has collapsed.
They have admitted to fabricating a timeline.
Just listen to this.
These are the things they've admitted.
They have admitted to fabricating a timeline...
Retracted or added six full paragraphs, to give the right context, reversed a key claim, in other words, just said that it was fake news, and failed to produce evidence of a falsified quotation.
Now, does that sound bad?
Now, imagine this.
This is normal.
If you've never had a hit piece written about you, and I'm lucky enough to have had a hit piece written about me, several of them actually, this is actually pretty normal.
That even a respected publication, I guess that's subjective, can just make up stuff.
Just totally made up.
And destroy somebody's credibility just by printing it.
Now, even though Christopher Ruffo basically just took the piss out of him.
I've never seen anybody just destroy an article like this so convincingly.
But here's the bad news.
How many people who read the article know about the corrections?
Not many. So the hit piece still works, even though it's been uncovered as unscrupulous.
It still works. So that's the world we live in.
So, can you trust the news when it talks about an individual who is, let's say, obviously a target for either the left or the right?
So this isn't just about left or right.
This is just the way stuff works.
No. Anytime you see a hit piece about an individual, just say to yourself, probably it's just a hit piece.
And the details might be missing a little context and the quotes might be made up.
Now, I want to say this in the comments.
How many of you think that major publications routinely make up quotes, actually put quotes on them, and publish them as if the subject of the article said them?
How often do you think that happens, that the quote is literally made up?
All the time. Until it happens to you, you just wouldn't even believe it.
But I've been the subject of lots of articles, and I see almost, I don't know, half of the time, there's a quote in there that I didn't say.
It's just something they think they remember sounds like something I would have said, so they just come up with a quote, put it in quotes, and just say I said it.
It happens all the time.
So when you see anything in quotes, don't believe it.
It might be true, And it might not be true, but don't believe it just because it's in quotes and it's in a major publication.
It doesn't mean anything and never has.
It's not like a new phenomenon.
The things in quotes are literally, frequently made up in all kinds of publications, you know, big and small and respectable and not.
Jack Posobiec tweeted this provocatively today.
I think it was today.
The New York Times in October 1903 predicted that a flying machine would take scientists millions of years to invent.
That was in 1903.
Same year that the Wright brothers had their first flight.
So the New York Times was off by millions of years.
The smartest people who are all over this were wrong by millions of years.
And as Jack points out, neither of the Wright brothers attended college, which is an interesting side point.
I added to this point my own little experience.
All right, so here's a true story.
In 1995, I was in a meeting with top Hollywood executives and the top agents.
Not the top, but among the top executives and agents.
Like really, you know, A-plus people.
And I proposed that if we did a Dilbert movie, which is what we were there to talk about, that it should be sort of what I was describing as a computer-generated, like, 3D movie.
Today you would call it CGI. But back then, you know, the language wasn't quite as clear.
And so I said, we shouldn't do this typical flat animation, you know, like The Simpsons.
We should do, like, a 3D computer-generated thing.
The experts in the movie, the experts...
In the movie industry, sitting around the table, unanimously told me, can't be done.
We don't have the technology to do that sort of a thing and make money at it.
This was 1995.
A few months later, Toy Story had theaters.
Smartest people in Hollywood didn't know Toy Story was already well under production Made over $300 million.
So we live in a world in which your experts sometimes are off by millions of years.
There's an interesting video I tweeted.
You can see it in my Twitter feed.
And it's done by Maze.
M-A-Z-E. His Twitter handle is M-A-Z-E-M-O-O-R-E. What's interesting about this is it shows the clips of Harris talking about the border in a very open border way, and then cuts to clips of her talking more recently, don't come, don't come, and if you come, we'll send you back.
So basically it's showing a complete flip-flop of opinions about immigration.
Now, we'll often see this with vice presidents in particular.
So you shouldn't make too much of it because it's sort of a vice president thing.
To have to reverse some specific topics when you're working for the top guy.
Or top person, let's say.
Let's be less sexist.
And here's what I wanted to point out.
The talent stack on Maze.
So if you just look at the profile, this is someone who is a digital artist, a video editor, and a researcher.
And says, you have seen my work, which is probably true.
So that's a pretty strong stack, isn't it?
So I'm only pointing this out, not so much because of the Harris part, because that's sort of typical for a vice president to do a flip-flop.
But look how strong this is.
To be a digital artist, at the same time you do video editing, and you're a researcher.
So you can find stuff that is the content you're doing your video editing.
Every time I see a good talent stack, I like to point it out.
Barry Weiss on Substack has a guest essay by Abigail Schreer, and the title of it really caught my attention.
The Books Are Already Burning.
Now you think to yourself, well, they're not really burning books in 2021, right?
Because that would be the worst thing you could imagine.
When you were a kid, didn't you always hear that if you were in a world where people are burning books, that's the worst place to be.
But we're there. It's just that the books are YouTube clips.
So the burning of books is a 2021 phenomenon.
The worst thing that you could imagine for the health of society, which is to delete people because they disagree with the mainstream, that's going to turn you into China.
That's going to turn you into the country that can't innovate.
It's the people who are wrong and have the freedom to be wrong in public Who drive everything?
Because sometimes the people who are completely wrong, well, sometimes they turn out to be the Wright brothers, right?
So you need this freedom to be wrong and really, really wrong and wrong a lot in order for society to move forward.
I would say one of the great systems that makes America so at least economically dominant is that you could be wrong as hell in America.
You can start a company that nobody buys your product.
You can fail like crazy.
You can fail on seven different things before you succeed.
I mean, you can say things in public that are just stupid when you find out what's real.
You can fail like crazy in America and have the wrong opinions and still be okay.
So this is really dangerous.
One of the topics here was the The Dark Horse podcast with Brett Weinstein.
So that's getting a lot of pressure.
Now, I'm not saying that I'm endorsing everything that's in that or any other content.
I'm saying that if you don't allow them to be right or wrong, I'm not the one who can judge that, but if you don't let them be right and let them be wrong, you've just destroyed the engine of America.
Being wrong Is the engine of America.
Because that's what allows us to iterate until we hit something that works, right?
You can't hit something that works by shooting at it once.
One person, you know, hit that target.
Ooh, let's hit that target.
It's about trial and error.
And we're, this country is one trial and error mofo.
It's what we do best, is fail.
In a good way. Coincidence or not?
Judge this. Is this a coincidence or not?
Today, Nick Gillespie of Reason, you all know, I hope you know, of Reason the publication, he tweeted a tweet that I said about the airports being busy.
Now, is that interesting?
Well, not especially.
It's just Nick Gillespie of Reason tweeted something about an airport that I tweeted.
The weird part is that yesterday I was literally in an airport talking about Nick Gillespie.
Because I was in Athens airport and Liz Wolf, who was also with Reason, recognized me sitting there and introduced herself.
And so I said, oh, you know, blah, blah, blah.
You know, I know Nick Gillespie.
And what are the odds that on one day I'd be talking about Nick Gillespie within an airport and the very next day Nick Gillespie would retweet just one of my tweets, and I don't think he's retweeted anything from me in a while.
It's about an airport.
What are the odds?
Coincidence? Hold that thought.
Hold the thought. And now, we're going to give you the micro lesson.
I'll bet you glad you stayed around for this.
This micro lesson is not about what is true.
It's not about what is true.
Alright, now let me introduce it.
Here's a micro lesson on understanding what level of awareness you're operating at.
Now, first of all, this is a way of looking at the world.
Don't think of it as true or false.
It's simply a frame or a filter you can put on the world that either works and helps you understand things, or it doesn't.
So judge it only by whether it's useful, not whether it's true.
And let me tell you what these levels are.
And this is based on my own observation.
So everything here is just from me as the source.
When you are born and you're a child, I'm going to call you innocent.
You believe what your parents tell you.
You believe in Santa Claus.
You believe in whatever religion they tell you is the right one.
You basically believe authority.
But as you get a little bit older, you become what I call a truther.
Somebody who thinks that the facts and the truth are what really matter.
And you understand that people could lie to you.
Your parents could lie to you about Santa and the Easter Bunny and the tooth fairy.
But other people, other adults could lie to you too.
So you've got to be careful. So you're a little higher level of awareness now because you know people can lie and you know that the facts And the truth are the most important thing.
Unfortunately, once you believe that the truth is the most important thing, you become a victim.
Because the truth is not something that you have access to.
It's something that's provided to you and you tend to accept it.
That is to say that there are people in power who control What the truth is.
So the moment you say, what matters to me most, what will guide me in my decisions, my affiliations, will be the truth, you become a victim.
Because leaders will feed you a truth that you'll believe, that will be putting you in a victim category.
The leader will say, hey, you're black.
You need to be with all the other black people and ask for certain things.
You're a member of the LGBTQ community.
You need to be a victim so that I, as a leader, can get you some better stuff.
You know, better stuff in terms of a better life.
So, the moment facts are your most important criteria, you will almost always be dragged into the victim level of awareness.
And leaders will tell you that they have the truth.
You will accept it because you tend to affiliate with a side and accept They're truth.
This is a bad place to be.
Next, if you can climb out of that, maybe through experience and just thinking about things right, and maybe you have a good mentor, you can raise your level to be a skeptic.
A skeptic is someone who rejects the assigned opinions.
Doesn't mean you have the right answers.
Doesn't mean you're the smart one.
It just means that you don't automatically take the approved answer.
You become skeptical. So this is a higher level of awareness, but has a limited utility.
It can keep you out of trouble by keeping you skeptical to things that might hurt you, but there's still a ways to go.
The next level is what I call the strategist level, where you say to yourself, I don't know what's true, but I do know what works.
I know that if I have more talent and build a proper talent stack, That I will be more effective.
I know that if I use a system rather than a goal, I'm going to get a better result.
I know that if I work hard, I'll get a better result than if I don't.
I know that if I network with lots of people, I'll get a better result than if I don't.
So the strategist is not working on so much what is true, but rather what they observe works.
And then at the top level, I call this the author level.
Can the author actually change?
Let me change my spelling here.
Terrible speller. Simulation.
That's close enough. I'm not saying an author or a person operating at that level of awareness can literally change reality, because we're not smart enough to know that.
We don't even know what reality is, much less that someone is changing it.
But, They will have the experience of it.
And when you observe them, it will seem as if they can.
Who would be in this level?
Well, I would put Trump in that level.
Trump isn't caring so much about the facts, right?
You know, he's loose with the fact-checking.
He's certainly above a skeptic, and he certainly understands strategy.
So he's passed through these levels to the point...
Where he literally just makes stuff happen out of nothing.
How about Mike Cernovich?
He's an author. He does things that you almost can't understand would be possible.
He's simply authoring the reality, or it looks like that way.
So keep in mind, I'm saying it's the appearance of changing reality that's the part we can observe.
We don't know what's really happening under the hood.
How about Naval Ravikant?
In my opinion, he's operating at the author level, meaning that if you looked at his life and what he's able to do, it just doesn't seem normal.
It's almost as if he can manipulate reality itself.
So people can be in more than one group, but I would submit to you that one way to use this is if you If you are in a disagreement with somebody, you might not actually be disagreeing.
And I have this problem quite a bit on Twitter.
There are a number of people on the truther level who will come at me on Twitter and they'll say, for example, transgender people are whatever they were born at.
This is a man, and this is a woman, and that's just a fact.
That's the truther level.
If somebody at the truther level The fact level, that's the only thing that matters, is the facts, gets into a debate with somebody who's operating at a strategy level, at least, much less the higher level.
These two people will look like they're having a debate, but they're not.
They're not even in the same realm of reality or awareness.
So, For those of you who say to me, but Scott, it's just a fact this is a man.
It's just a fact that this is a woman.
Well, if facts are what matter most to you, okay, but we're not having the same conversation.
I'm at a strategy level, and I'm saying, well, what works?
Given this set of uncertainties and disagreements, what do you do about it?
What's the system that makes all that work?
And that's a different conversation than is somebody definitely a man or definitely a woman.
Might be fun to talk about.
Doesn't have much use in the real world versus strategy.
And the higher level is if you want something to happen, make it happen.
And that is your micro lesson.
So, notice that the stories that I talked about were all about subjective reality.
They were all about fake news.
And they're all about what you believe.
Once you release on the fact that you can't really know what's true, then you have the ability to rise up the levels of awareness and make yourself more effective.
If you're completely limited by what the facts are, then your ability to author the simulation will be just not something you could do.
But the people who understand...
That there's something about this reality that doesn't quite make sense in terms of our factual or even scientific understanding.
Once you see how often the same people can seem to author the simulation, because it's the same people, right?
Somebody who can do it does it more than once, right?
Elon Musk is authoring the simulation.
Elon Musk is not trapped in any of these lower levels, right?
I don't even think he's at the strategy level, although clearly he understands strategy.
I think he's operating unambiguously, in my opinion.
It's hard to know from the outside.
But it looks to me like he's changing reality consistently.
And when somebody can do that, you have to say to yourself, how do I do that?
