Episode 1453 Scott Adams: Climate Models Have New Critics, Why Politicians are Bad During Pandemics, More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Mike Lindell pulls all ads from Fox News
COVID Leadership motivations
Climate models are "too alarmist"
Dave Rubin limited by Twitter
Doesn't Delta variant change our strategy?
Everyone gets the virus...or we live like this forever
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Yes, this little piece of paper is the one I read every time.
It's got the simultaneous sip language on it.
Yeah, yeah, I know.
Just about anybody in the world would have memorized this by now.
I say it every day.
But for some reason, I can't.
I don't know. My brain doesn't work that way.
If it's written down, I won't memorize it.
And all you need to make your day better...
I can make that better. There you go.
Here's a cup of mug, a glass, a tanker, chalice, a stein, a canteen jug, a 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 of the day, the thing that makes everything better, it's called the simultaneous sip.
Go. All right, so first of all, YouTubers, we got cut off yesterday, and I didn't know why.
The answer is my device.
So I had some kind of a Wi-Fi bug that knocked me off on my iPad.
But if it happens again, the problem is me, not YouTube.
I have new hardware for tomorrow, so you'll see a different look tomorrow.
If you don't want the ads...
You can go over to the Locals platform, which today I've unlocked, so that you could watch it without a subscription.
So just that part of the content, my other content, the provocative stuff, you would still need a subscription for that.
All right. Oh, okay.
Thought I had a problem here, but I don't.
Life is good. So, did you see that Mike Lindell pulled his MyPillow ads from Fox?
How does Fox even survive without the MyPillow ads?
That's a pretty big part.
And part of it is, and the reason he pulled his ads is he wanted to do something, I guess, about the election and Fox News didn't want that one on there, and so Mike Lindell pulled it all.
And it should be noted that Mike Lindell stuck with Fox News when, let's say, Tucker Carlson was getting a lot of heat.
Mike Lindell stuck with him, but it didn't work the other way.
I'm not saying it should.
I'm just noting that the reciprocity was not...
Complete, although the situations are different, to be fair.
There's no reason to assume there would be reciprocity.
But you can see why Mike Lindell might have said, you know, I was loyal to you, and you weren't loyal to me.
You may be thinking along those lines.
The other possibility is that the business isn't doing that well, because he's getting so much heat because of the election stuff.
I don't know how many pillows he's selling.
That had to have some kind of an effect.
So it could be that his advertising budget isn't as much as it used to be either.
But on the other hand, that's the only way he sells pillows, right?
Unless people just buy them off the shelf these days.
So that's something to watch because as advertisers are affected by the news and the issues, maybe the whole advertising model of news...
Can't last. It's going to be all pharmaceuticals all the time.
All right. Representative Madeleine Dean is very mad at the insurrection deniers.
So the Republicans, apparently the Republicans like to say things like, well, that thing you call an insurrection was just people walking around peacefully and taking pictures.
Now... That's such a lie.
Why would you say that?
Now, that's close to something that is true.
What's close to something that's true is that almost everybody there was nonviolent, and they didn't really have heavy weaponry.
But obviously, it was seriously violent in some places.
The fact that 98% of them had nothing to do with violence doesn't change the fact it was a violent day and all that was bad.
So here's a suggestion to the Republicans.
You look like idiots when you say it was peaceful.
You just look like idiots.
Because 100% of the world knows it wasn't peaceful.
Why would you say that?
It's such a bad way to persuade.
You have to tell people the thing that's obvious before you start.
It's obvious horrible things happened.
Let's stipulate that.
Horrible things happened, and now make your point.
That 98% of them, blah, blah, blah, were peaceful.
Obviously, it wasn't an insurrection because they didn't bring the kind of weapons or any kind of assets that would make that happen.
It was just a protest.
Now, you could definitely make the case it's just a protest and that, well, not just a protest, but that part of it got violent.
But why would you be so ridiculous to try to categorize the whole thing as peaceful?
I mean, that's just so dumb.
It's so dumb. Don't do that.
All right, here's one of those goals versus systems situation.
And I feel like we're, the public, and that would include most of you, I think we're stuck in a little weird trap with the pandemic.
And the trap is that we manage to what is measured properly.
This is one of the most important understandings of the world that you will ever have.
And it's something you don't get when you're a teenager.
It takes, like, a long time to figure out how the world really works.
And one of the ways that the world really works is that we manage to statistics.
So if something can be measured, that's what we're going to manage to.
Because there's going to be somebody elected or hired...
Whose job it is to manage to that thing.
It's the only thing we're measuring.
So make sure this goes up and this goes down.
That's your job. So how do you measure, in the context of the pandemic, if you're a politician, how do you measure people being happier?
You don't do it. I mean, there might be polls about people being happier, but no politician manages to that, right?
But what do you care about?
If I asked you, what do you care about?
You'd say, well, being happy, being free, like being able to make my own choices.
But where's the measurement for those things?
Where's your measurement of freedom?
It's not measured. Where's your measurement of happiness?
It's not measured, right?
So the things you want don't have numbers associated with them because you couldn't.
But the things that the politicians will be judged on are the stuff you can measure.
Deaths during their term.
That's basically it.
Right? I mean, infections, too.
I mean, that's going to look bad if everything's spiking.
But mostly deaths.
And what is different between politicians and the public?
Right? What is the public saying consistently pretty much all of us?
Pretty much all of the public is saying some version of, we know it's dangerous.
We know it. We want to do it anyway.
We've assessed the risks.
Thank you very much.
The government is actually pretty good at at least trying to get you information, at least pushing the right buttons.
You don't get the right information all the time, but at least they're trying, and it's the right entity to do it.
So I think we have to look at the fact that our goal of getting past the pandemic doesn't look the same if you're a politician or you're the public.
And that's a big frickin' problem.
Because the politicians are in charge of fixing this thing, or getting us past the pandemic, and they don't have the same incentives that we do.
That's the worst possible situation.
What could be worse than your leaders having a different motivation than the people they're leading?
That doesn't get worse.
That's the worst system you could devise, is that the people and the leaders are on a different page.
And that's what we have. And it's because some things are measurable and some things aren't.
Now, do you think we should build a pandemic policy around things that just coincidentally are things you can measure, sort of, and you're not even sure about that?
That's what we got.
Let me suggest a different system, which is sort of self-organizing as we speak.
It has to do with, let's just take the one example of mask mandates coming back on.
Now, I think we all understand why the politicians want the mask mandates.
The Delta variant is super bad, and it's infecting people, even vaccinated people, and then they can give it to other people, even if they don't have a big problem themselves.
They can spread it, blah, blah, blah.
So we all understand why, but would you make the same choice the politicians are making?
No. No, you wouldn't.
You would probably say, yeah, I get everything you're saying.
I hear everything you've told me.
I understand it. And I think I still don't want to wear my mask because I want to take that chance.
I feel as though the system that's emerging is that...
Let me put a number on it.
I think that mask mandates work...
When 99% of the public or more complies just based on a sign, just a sign alone.
You walk up to a business, you see the sign, 99% of you put on your masks.
If that's not the case, and it's only, let's say, 90%, What happens if only 90% put on their mask to enter that store, even though the sign on the door says put on your mask?
What happens if it's only 90%?
Well, the store owners have a big problem, right?
They either have to spend all their time getting that 10% to put on their masks, or they ignore it.
What are they going to do?
You're at McDonald's.
I'll just pick a random business.
You go into McDonald's without your mask, even though the door says you've got to wear a mask.
The manager says, oh, could you please wear a mask?
We require them. You say, oh, okay.
Yeah, I thought I could eat here without a mask, but I'll eat somewhere else.
They don't care that much.
But then you say, oh, okay.
Or let's say, alternately say, oh, okay, I didn't realize that you would need a mask for fully vaccinated people, but I'm happy to comply.
So you put on your mask, you order your food, and then you take your mask off to eat it.
Right? But you have caused their staff to do something that's not related to their main job.
How many people go through McDonald's every day?
If one in ten comes in and causes a problem, the whole operation doesn't work.
You know, McDonald's is a well-oiled machine, but even that doesn't work if they have to tell every tenth person they have to have a conversation with them.
The whole system shuts down.
So here's what I see emerging.
When things were less certain and people were less vaccinated, Listening to your government about what to do medically to keep yourself safe, pretty rational.
I'd say that was rational.
But once you realize that your government's incentive has sort of veered away from your incentive or how you would like to live your life, the freedom, the risk you'd like to put into it, I think the public's in charge now.
I believe that authority is being transferred accidentally to From leaders, elected leaders, to the public.
And I believe that with this second round of mask mandates, I don't think the leaders are in charge.
Or should be.
Or should be.
Right? I believe this decision will be the public's.
The public last time, 99 point whatever percent of us, said, alright, alright, we hate masks, but it looks temporary.
Right? It looks well considered, and we think that the people who are recommending it are on our side.
That was all true, don't you think?
The people recommending it were, for the most part, on your side, doing the best they could, looked temporary, perfectly reasonable, even if you hated it.
It was reasonable, I thought.
Reasonable enough so you'd comply.
Even if you didn't think it was reasonable, it was close enough.
But I don't know about this second wave.
If mask mandates come back, I feel as if you're going to get at least 10% who just say, well, let's see what happens every time I go into a store without one.
Just see what happens.
And let them take you out.
Be polite about it, because the people working at the store, they didn't cause you any problem.
Like, they're just citizens.
They're just trying to get through the day.
So don't be an asshole to whoever works or owns the store or the place you're going to.
I mean, please. We don't need that, right?
But you can certainly assert your preference and politely put on your mask or leave when asked.
It would probably stop the whole system.
So, I think you're going to see the public take control of this decision.
I think that's what's going to happen.
All right. But suppose you wanted to change the system so that the leaders could do what you wanted them to do.
How about the leaders just said, all right, the only thing we're going to measure is hospital capacity.
As long as the hospital capacity is fine, you can all make up your own decisions.
Would that politician get re-elected?
Probably not. Because then the other side would say, well, you don't care about deaths and look at how many people you killed by being irresponsible.
It would actually have a number for how many people you killed.
So you need some kind of a system...
That recognizes that in this case the public needs to sort of make the decision.
So maybe you make it based on polls.
How about you say, you know, if you were a politician, suppose you said, look, if 75% of the public wants no masks, I'll support that.
If 75% of the public says no masks on, let's say, whatever poll you think is credible...
That you'll agree.
Would you support a politician who said, look, if you go your way with no masks, more people will die.
I believe more people will die.
But you will all live free, and you all know your risk.
So I'm going to go with you.
I'll go with the public.
What would you say about that?
And suppose your politician said, look, I'm going to work with the medical people and the mental health people and the experts I can.
We're going to pick a number.
And when 75% of the public, just to pick a random number, when 75% of the public says no masks and that you prefer that risk, you prefer that risk, I'll agree with you.
And I would just throw it back to the public and say, and by the way, This is something Trump could do that nobody else could do.
Name one person who could do this.
Trump could stand in front of the world and say, look, we've got the medical considerations, we've got the freedom, the psychological considerations, the president doesn't need to tell you what to do all the time.
Sometimes you tell me what to do.
So public, we're going to start pulling the shit out of you.
When you get to 75%, no masks, that's it.
That's it. That'll be the decision.
You make the decision this time.
We made the decision last time because that made sense.
But it doesn't make sense this time.
I feel like the public has enough of a sense of the risk that we can handle this.
Somebody says polls don't work.
Well, you know, nothing works perfectly.
But you have a choice of things that don't work perfectly.
You can't get away from that.
Manufacturing consensus?
Yeah, it would be somewhat manufactured because you'd have the different entities deciding, you know, the public debate.
And the influential people would have more influence, right?
The persuasive people would have a bigger impact.
But I still think it's a better system because the public would say, okay, you know, we listened to the medical experts, we made our decision Democracy.
Sometimes it works.
Rasmussen did a poll asking people to rate Congress.
Now, as you know, Congress does not have a high rating for good job, but I didn't know it was this bad.
How many people in the poll, the Rasmussen poll, said that Congress is doing an excellent job?
Excellent. Excellent.
5%. 5% thought they were excellent.
How many thought they were at least, well, good.
You're good. 12%.
So 17% thought good or excellent.
And I think there were, I didn't write this one down, but it was something like 4% or something didn't have an opinion.
Who doesn't have an opinion on Congress?
I guess there's somebody.
But if you add together the 17% and, say, the 4% who just don't have an opinion, you get about 21% who answered this poll who are just fucking idiots.
Consistent, right? Around 20% of the public are fucking idiots on any question.
And, you know, it's between 20 and 30, but I use 25 as my anchor point there.
So 25% said they're doing a fair job and 54% said poor.
Can you think of any other job you can keep when 54% of the public think you're doing a bad job?
Can you? Is there anything else?
And again, it's a system problem, isn't it?
The system problem is that everybody likes their own representative, but they hate yours.
And we all get to vote on everybody else's representative.
So you have a system which guarantees a low rating because you're ranking the other person's representative, not your own.
Let's talk about climate models.
Michael Schellenberger was tweeting this this morning.
That apparently there's a new group of critics for the climate models.
So there are the people who make the models.
They're involved in that kind of work.
So they make the models.
And in the past, there were a lot of critics of the models.
For example, a lot of people on the right.
Mostly. Mostly people on the right.
And people like me. I don't align with the right on my own thing.
But... I've been a big critic of the models.
But now there is a new group of critics of the models, and that includes the people who make the models.
So the people who make the models are having trouble agreeing on what assumptions should go into the models, so much so that it would wildly change the outcome.
Now, aren't you confused?
Because is science...
Duh. And if it's science, how could there be disagreement?
And climate science is all settled and dull, dull.
Well... As 100% of people who have ever worked with any kind of models that are iterative over time, where any small change in the assumptions wildly changes the outcome in year 10 and certainly in year 80, anybody who's ever done that work, and I have, I've done a lot of that work of modeling, you know it's bullshit.
Everybody who's done modeling knows models are bullshit.
Unfortunately. I mean, I had a job for years that was more bullshit than useful, so that wasn't awesome.
But at least I learned something.
I learned that models are basically based on the assumption.
So now we know that there's a little bit more disagreement on the models, but before you get all happy, because let's say you're a climate change denier type, before you get all happy...
All of the models still say we've got a big problem.
So when I say that the people who make the models are arguing against the models too, keep in mind that all of the models say things are bad or that the Earth is warming because of human involvement.
So there's nobody who says, oh, everything's fine, at least within the main credible model-making world.
Now, does that mean that they're all right?
I don't know. I mean...
My personal belief is that the people who say that adding a certain chemical to the atmosphere should cause a certain effect are probably right, but the estimating exactly how that goes, and then especially estimating how humans respond to it, totally unpredictable.
So Dave Rubin's Twitter account got limited by Twitter.
So here's why his account got limited.
I guess that just means he can't tweet for a while.
I think that's what it means.
So he's not kicked off.
He's just limited for a while.
And here's what he got limited for.
Saying that the vaccinations are not working as promised.
So maybe we should take a step back and look at our strategy.
And he got limited on Twitter for that.
What? What?
What he said, and what I paraphrased, is what all of science believes.
He agreed with science.
He agreed with everybody.
Is there anybody who disagrees with the statement that the vaccinations did not work the way, you know, you could say promised or expected?
Does anybody believe they worked the way they were expected?
Who was it who thought that you would need more booster shots?
I don't remember anybody talking about that.
I mean, it was always in the wind, but it wasn't really a topic.
How many people knew that you could get vaccinated and still many, many people could get the actual infection and also spread it?
You'd have a high viral load.
How many people knew that?
I mean, I suppose experts probably thought, somebody says, I knew.
Okay, you knew. Somebody on YouTube is like, I knew.
You didn't know anything.
You may have suspected, but you didn't know anything.
But I like your confidence.
So... Wouldn't the entire medical community and the scientific community say, yes, we thought the vaccinations would pretty much prevent you from getting it and would probably not need a booster?
I think those are important and safe, accurate things.
And so Dave Rubin says that, given that you didn't get what you thought you were getting, should you pause and consider your entire strategy?
Essentially the same thing I said earlier in this live stream, which is maybe the experts and the strategy are out of alignment.
How do you get it?
How does anybody look at that and tell him that that wasn't a legitimate thing to say?
Now, yeah, you could disagree with it.
That's what opinions are, right?
But he didn't say anything that's inaccurate, right?
Not only is it accurate, it is the least provocative thing you could possibly say.
Because everybody agrees with this statement.
Everybody. Everybody agrees that if there's new data, you should maybe reconsider your strategy.
Everybody agrees.
Like, I don't know how to say that stronger.
Everybody says that's right.
And everybody agrees that the vaccinations weren't quite what we thought.
And everybody agrees that when the information changes, the most rational thing anybody can do is take a step back and say, all right, did that change what our strategy is?
How the hell do you get suspended for that?
Good Lord. Now...
Let me be a little bit charitable to Twitter.
I assume that the people who are monitoring activity and making decisions like this, they're not your high-end executives, right?
It's people who are getting paid a certain amount of money dealing with a large volume of stuff.
But when you see somebody who's a high-visibility account, like Dave Rubin, I feel like that one should have gotten kicked upstairs, don't you think?
I don't think that any decision about his account, I mean, if you're a blue check, you've got a certain visibility in the world, I feel like that just has to go through management.
So, to Twitter, let me suggest that for the larger accounts, if you don't have this system in place already, I would recommend that you have a system of, just for the larger accounts, give them a second look.
Get a supervisor involved.
Because I don't know that you could get two people to ban this account or to limit it.
I just don't know that two people sitting there and looking at it carefully would have the same outcome.
It looks like one person made a bad decision.
So consider your systems.
Twitter, there might be a hiccup in the system.
All right, so I told you that if mask compliance goes down to 90%, just picking a random number there, Probably that will be such a problem for the system that mask mandates just won't work.
Well, we're going to see a little leadership happening in the House of Representatives because dozens of House Republicans and staffers, they took off their masks or didn't have them in the first place and marched to the Senate floor to protest the mask mandates.
So it looks like some Republicans are going to go first.
Now, would it be easier for the public to ignore mask mandates if they saw their elected representatives doing it?
It might. So this is the weird thing about leadership.
When you hear the word leadership, don't automatically think it's good.
Leadership doesn't mean good.
It just means leadership.
Because you could lead somebody to the Holocaust or you could lead them to peace.
I mean, you could lead somebody anywhere.
So leadership is not good or bad.
Usually it's evil, in my opinion.
But it doesn't have to be.
And here's an example.
Is it right or is it wrong for the House Republicans to encourage people to not wear masks if they're vaccinated?
Is that good or bad?
I don't know. I don't know.
I mean, you know, it's one of those things that could turn out either way, and you could evaluate it either way.
Maybe extra people will die.
Well, that's bad. Maybe they give us our freedom back at the risk of some, you know, risk of death.
Well, maybe that's good.
I'd like a little more freedom even at the risk of death.
So I don't think you need to have an opinion on whether it's good or bad to still applaud them.
This is actual leadership.
You elect these people to express the will of the people most of the time, but sometimes they have to lead.
That's an expectation. And so I would say to the Republicans who staged this protest, good leadership, even if it's the wrong thing.
In the end, we're sort of guessing.
And we have different priorities, perhaps.
But good leadership. I would say whoever was involved in that, give yourself a pat on the back for not being a sheep.
Even if you're wrong. Even if you're wrong.
So, here's my take on things.
And I wonder if anybody will ever say this in public, in terms of politicians.
Will they ever say this in public?
Hasn't our... Path out of the pandemic, it's different now, right?
I believe we had a path out of the pandemic, or thought we did, mistakenly, we thought we did earlier on, in which it was you were going to get herd immunity, and then you'd be done.
And the herd immunity would be some combination of infected people plus vaccinations.
But that's not possible now, right?
Wouldn't you say that the Delta variant, along with the fact that vaccinated people can still carry it quite easily, it seems, doesn't that change the strategy from trying to get to herd immunity and then being done?
I don't think we can.
Isn't it a foregone conclusion given current information, not a year ago, but current information, Isn't it a foregone conclusion that we're basically all going to get the virus?
And that the only thing that matters is how sick you got?
Or if you died?
So it seems to me that we need a leader who can tell us the truth.
I think the truth is that we all have to get the virus.
Or else it's perpetual.
We either live like this forever, and that's unsustainable, or...
We get as many people as possible, both vaccinated and also infected.
Because if you're vaccinated first and then infected, you're almost certainly not going to die.
So, and then, you know, enough to keep our hospitals running.
The reason for both is that until the vaccinated people also get infected, they're almost certainly going to be spreaders.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but a vaccinated person can spread very easily.
A person who's recovered will never take hold in a way, or rarely, will take hold in a way that you could be a spreader.
So there are two things you're trying to stop.
One is the spreading, which the vaccinations don't do enough of, stopping the spread.
But being infected does, I think.
Now, give me a fact check on that, but I think that's the case.
So, And by the way, I also think, based on freedom and free will and choice and all that, that if there's some people who don't want to get vaccinated and they're fully aware of their options and their choices, it's fine. But at least your strategy would be the same.
Your strategy would be to get as many people both vaccinated and infected.
The people who don't get vaccinated will just get infected.
So that's a strategy, too.
So... Am I wrong?
Let me look in the comments.
Am I analyzing this incorrectly?
Check my assumptions.
Assumption number one, since the vaccinations do not stop infections, and the Delta variant is just crazy, we're all going to get it.
This year, next year, five years from now.
Right? Right. I see somebody saying, you are wrong.
Well, just tell me which assumption I'm wrong on, or if the logic is wrong.
So I've got some assumptions, and I've got some logic.
Tell me if either of those look wrong to you.
We need therapeutics in every situation, yes.
Herd immunity doesn't resolve individuals.
I don't know what that means.
So let's make an assumption about new variants.
New variants are coming no matter what, right?
Is there anybody who thinks that the variants won't happen no matter what?
So I don't know if the vaccinations make more variants, but I don't see any other way to get there.
Yeah. There's no way to tell.
Well, yeah, that's true. Is the Spanish flu still around?
The Spanish flu burned itself out in two seasons, I think.
But I don't think that this one has the same characteristics as the Spanish flu, so I'd be careful about comparing them.
Yeah, and then there's the idea that the vaccinations by their nature...
Might create variants.
But I think we're already past that.
In other words, there are so many people vaccinated already that if what you're worrying about is that the vaccinated create variants, we're already there.
Spanish flu didn't have the internet.
Yeah, that's true. Somebody says getting vaccinated during a pandemic creates the variants.
Well, do we know if the Delta variant came from a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated?
Do we even know that the Delta variant is a variant that came from the natural spread, or was it just a different virus?
Can anybody tell me that we know for sure that something is a variant versus something that was a variant in the lab?
Are you telling me that there couldn't have been a second coronavirus escape?
I mean, I don't think they would have escaped at the same time because the Delta variant would have been the dominant one from the start.
But I don't see anything that would stop a second leak later, especially if it was intentional, which I'm not alleging.
I'm just saying you have to consider all possibilities.
So somebody says Delta is a variant from the original, but that could be in a lab as well.
You could make the variant in a lab.
It doesn't have to happen in nature, does it?
Somebody says, if you discussed the election audits this deeply, you would have a different position.
That could be true.
But let me reiterate my...
My belief on the audits, which is if they found the goods, you would already know it.
Let's take Arizona as my example.
And I'm going to stick by that because I find that kind of prediction to be really accurate, meaning that making a prediction based on you would have had a leak by now, it really works, right? So even though your maybe common sense is telling you, no, Scott, there's so much smoke.
I mean, there's smoke all over the place.
We've heard so many things that suggest that there's a problem.
There's so many. So many.
And from credible people, too.
Right? But you haven't heard anything, like, from the actual audit that, you know, was official enough that got leaked.
Right? And I'm positive you would have heard that by now.
I'm positive. I think where it's going to end up is two movies.
Easiest prediction in the world is that when the audit results come out, there'll be some ambiguity about maybe a chain of custody or whatever.
And people who believe there was a problem will say, well, it's been proven by the audit.
And the people who don't think there's a problem will say, well, look, all they found was some ambiguous thing.
They didn't actually find a problem.
It's going to be two screens.
I don't think the odds of an audit producing a kill shot that just says, whoa, the whole election definitely was fraudulent.
I will put the odds of that at, I don't know, 5% maybe?
And that assumes that there's fraud.
Like, you know, that makes a big assumption that I don't think is necessarily supported by the data.
So why were you blocking it?
I don't know what you're talking about.
So what are you going to do if the FDA approves the vaccinations through the normal process?
I see a ton of people saying that one of the reasons they don't want to take the vaccinations is that they didn't go through the normal FDA process.
What if they do? What if a month from now, or whatever...
You fucking asshole.
I'm just looking at a comment here.
You know, a lot of people are just terrible people, aren't they?
You see some comments going by, and you say to yourself, my God, I'm glad I don't know that person in the real world.
I mean, just horrible people.
I mean, I see some of the comments.
I don't think I can respect you less, based on most of you, of course, I love.
But... I'll tell you the comment that triggered me.
Somebody saying that, I said I left the house twice during the pandemic, and therefore I'm not a hermit.
What I said was, I traveled more miles during the pandemic than any other year of my life.
Does that sound the same?
Does that sound the same as left the house twice?
No, I traveled more outside my house than any time in my life.
And so this guy wants to call me out on that.
I think I'm triggered by people who misstate things about me in public and then present their opinion based on their misstatement.
It's just really annoying if you're a public figure.
Because if you think about it, aren't there legitimate things to criticize me for?
If you look at all the things I've said and done, even today, seriously, you can't find a real thing to criticize me for?
Even I could criticize me.
Like, I like me, and I agree with all of my opinions.
And even I could find things to criticize about me.
Real things. Like, real, objectively obvious real things.
Why do you have to make shit up?
If you want to criticize me, go wild.
I'm okay with that. But criticize something that's a little bit real.
Just a little bit.
Why the fuck do you have to make shit up?
All right. Giving Cuomo a pass for mass murder is something I criticize you for.
Fair. How fair is that?
Good example. Now there's a person who is not an asshole.
That's just a completely legitimate criticism that I said in the beginning of the pandemic that people are going to make big mistakes.
It is because it's fog of war and mostly people are guessing.
And that we should be somewhat generous after the fact because we're asking our leaders basically to go into the machine gun nest.
And when you ask somebody to go into the machine gun nest...
I feel like you've got to be a little bit more forgiving about how they do it.
So, yes, it was a gigantic mistake.
Yes, it was a gigantic tragedy.
Yes, it should never have happened.
But I'm going to be consistent.
If Trump had done it, I'd be saying the same thing.
The fact that Cuomo did it and he's an enemy of Trump doesn't change the fact.
I would say the same damn thing if it had been Trump.
So, at least I'm consistent.
But, those of you who are criticizing it, totally fair.
Because you're looking at the same facts.
You're not making anything up.
It's just an opinion.
And that's fair. Are you paid to soft-sell vaccines?
That's a good question.
Wouldn't you say? So, first of all, am I... Am I soft-selling vaccines?
I would say that that observation is correct.
It's correct. What's not true is that it's my intention.
Now that part you can't check, right?
Because that's something happening in my head.
You also couldn't know if somebody had secretly paid me to influence.
I definitely would not take money from a pharmaceutical to influence anybody.
That would be I mean, I almost can't think of anything less ethical than that.
I mean, that would be so deeply immoral that, let me say it directly, no, I don't take money from pharmaceuticals.
I don't take actually any...
Let me make sure that I'm not lying.
But in terms of the live stream, I don't take any advertising...
From anybody directly. It's all just stuff that goes through the system.
You know, YouTube decides what ads are on there.
So I don't take any money for that, for live streaming, or let me be less specific.
I don't take any money from any pharmaceuticals for anything, period.
And neither has the government asked me to persuade.
Now, if this had been the Trump administration, I guarantee...
That somebody in the administration would have reached out and asked me to persuade.
I guarantee it.
But under the Biden administration, now nobody's reached out to me.
Nobody's asked for that. So I tell you my experience and I tell you what I think is true and not true as best I can determine it.
And I help you think about it.
Now, because this is the real world...
Talking honestly and usefully about any topic is likely to cause you to be influenced.
Because things do have a more natural right and wrong lots of times, right?
Sometimes things are just a toss-up.
But I feel like the vaccination thing leans towards vaccination.
Just an opinion.
Now, if...
Talking about it objectively gets you to that same opinion, which, by the way, remember the recording that I like to run in my head?
The recording I run in my head in situations like this where you can't really know how things are going to turn out, the recording is, but I could be wrong.
And easily. Like, if you ask me, what is your level of confidence that getting the vaccine was the right decision...
I'd say more than 50%.
But not 99%.
Definitely not 99%.
But you have to make a decision, right?
Not getting a vaccine is a decision with a whole bunch of unknowns.
Getting a vaccination is a decision with a whole bunch of unknowns.
And you don't know which of those unknowns is bigger.
For you. I mean, you could know statistically, but it doesn't apply to you.
You're not a statistic.
So, given that you can't know what's the right decision for you, I don't think I should influence you.
Should I? But you also can't turn it off.
If you're, let's say you're a character in the real world, and you're living in the real world, and you're saying real things about real things, it's going to influence somebody.
That's the kind of influence that I think is ethical because it's just you speaking your opinion and not intending to persuade.
Adam says that I make you feel like you're talking to a friend in the living room.
So, I don't know if you know this, but that's exactly what I'm trying to do.
So I try to do this live stream so it's not a production.
It just feels like you're talking to somebody familiar on topics you're interested in, ideally.
Scott, do you purposely avoid...
Oh, here's a good question. Avoid drilling too deeply on a topic if it would reverse the point you're trying to persuade?
No, and fuck you.
I thought that was going to be a good question, but it was just an accusation, basically.
No, I don't avoid looking into the details because I'm worried it will change my opinion.
I like having my opinion changed.
You know, my sort of unique place that I fill in the media landscape, I have an advantage that other people don't, which is that I can be spectacularly wrong and just turn it into entertainment.
I don't have to turn it into votes.
So what would be more entertaining than finding out something I was dead certain about is wrong?
I would be entertained by that.
I would be totally entertained by that.
And I would definitely hope that you would too.
Since my major theme is the, let's say, the vulnerability of psychology, the fact that you could be a smart, well-informed person and totally bamboozled By fake impressions and fake news and bad analysis and all that.
It's part of my core philosophy that I can be completely wrong about things I'm really, really sure about.
And that to me is the basic nature of reality, is that people being wrong about things they're sure about.
So in my specific case, being spectacularly wrong about something doesn't hurt me.
And I'd argue it helps me.
Because it's on brand.
It would be exactly what I tell you is true.
That even people like me who look into stuff, you know, at least more than most people, I would say.
The average. And I figure I'm educated and reasonably smart.
How wrong can I be about obvious stuff that I think I'm really right about?
Really wrong. Really wrong.
But I would want you to see that.
I wouldn't want to hide it from you.
Um... Do you think engaging more with YouTube comments versus locals is bad persuasion for gaining local subscribers?
Well, I like that you're competitive.
So I've got two live streams going here, YouTube and then subscription service.
And I get comments on both.
But I do spend more time on the local stuff before and after.
All right. But I also noticed that the locals people are a little more likely to agree with me, which is no surprise.
They're subscribers. And the YouTube people are more provocative.
They're more idiots on YouTube.
Sorry, YouTube, but it's true.
There's a pretty high percentage of idiots in the comments on YouTube compared to locals.
Locals tends to be more civilized.
That has to do with the fact that people are paying to be there.
All right. And that is all we've got today.
Now I'll talk to you.
Oh, wait. I want to see this comment before I go.
It's not about your opinion.
It's about the point you're trying to persuade others.
