Episode 1480 Scott Adams: Talking About All the Huge D*cks in the News Today. With Coffee.
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Now there's ISIS-K?
Larry Elder, "Because we have a state to save"
Election rules determine the winner
COVID is permanent now
CNN's anecdotal brainwashing technique
Apple OS reviews your photos, reports to police
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Today is the day that you'll have an unexpectedly better day than you expected.
Yeah, never start a sentence if you don't know how it's going to end.
It ends up like that. But if you'd like to start something that does end well, well, let me tell you, I got something for you.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Have you heard of it? Yeah, it's very big.
It's all over the world. And all you need to participate in this mass exercise of unity is a cup or mug or glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I still 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, and watch it happen now.
Go! That's some good stuff.
Speaking of good stuff, I once had the following idea, which is that we spend a lot of time in the bathroom.
And wouldn't it be great if every time you entered, let's say, the bathroom that you usually use, because most of us are creatures of routine, if there was some kind of sensor that knew who you were, recognized you by your, I don't know, your Apple Watch or something, and automatically brought up a two-minute lesson of something useful that you could learn in two minutes.
And I called it Turd University, because you'd be doing your business...
And in about two minutes, you'd learn a new skill.
And since you use the restroom every day, you'd learn 365 skills in one year.
With no effort whatsoever, you were going to be there anyway, and maybe you didn't bring any reading material.
And so I didn't realize that I had accidentally created Turd University, But I called it my locals subscription service.
So in addition to my other content that's too edgy to be in the general public, such as my Robots Read News comic strip, here are some of the things that people are learning on the local subscription platform.
I'll just give you an example.
I think I've got hundreds of them now.
So these are micro-lessons, two-minute lessons or so that I give people so you can learn how to maximize your creativity, how to set up your own live stream, when to believe the experts, voice variability, fun versus efficiency.
I'll just give you some more.
There are just hundreds of them.
Controlling what you can control.
Some of them are just funny.
Determining your human value.
Managing your ego.
Learning to speak well.
I've got one coming up that I'm going to record today on how to brag without bragging.
So those are the things.
I've got my whiteboard all queued up.
And if you were paying $7 a month to be on the local subscription platform, one of the things that I promise is that you will get hundreds of dollars of value every month in terms of how it makes your life better.
All right. So let's see what's going on here in what we call the news.
First of all, ISIS-K may have just attacked just before I got on.
I saw that the Kabul airport had some kind of explosion and gunfire at one of the gates.
Could be ISIS-K. Now, I don't like ISIS-K as a name because it's a little bit too cool.
I don't like naming a terror organization after something that sounds like a boy band.
It sounds just a little bit too attractive.
Hey, have you seen what ISIS-K is up to?
What? I'd like to get their album.
So I think we've branded them poorly.
Just a little bit too cool.
Now, if you don't know about ISIS-K, they want to start a caliphate over there in the Afghanistan-ish territories.
And the Taliban are considered too liberal for them.
That's right. They're the natural enemy of the Taliban because the Taliban's a little too flexible.
But ISIS-K? Not so flexible.
And so the question is, and again, you have to wonder about this, don't you?
Will the Taliban's control of Afghanistan make us more safe or less safe from ISIS-K? I don't know.
Because the Taliban are their enemies, and the Taliban could probably be more brutal in tracking them down and killing them than we would be.
So isn't one possible unexpected outcome that ISIS and al-Qaeda are degraded in Afghanistan?
Because the Taliban really doesn't want any more trouble with the rest of the world.
They just want to run their little fiefdom there.
So anyway, I'm not saying that's necessarily likely, but I don't think you could rule out the possibility that retreating gets us better protection from ISIS-K. Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of no's.
Yeah, I wouldn't say it's likely, but I think it's one of the possibilities.
Rasmussen Poll asked, is Afghanistan situation better or worse than the news portrays?
57% say worse.
Really? Really?
Because it feels like the news is portraying it as pretty bad.
This is the one situation where all of the news is on the same side.
You rarely get that, right?
The entire news thinks this is pretty, pretty bad.
Here is a little warning shot for you.
Now, you all, of course, know about the controversy of ivermectin.
And Boy, if you're on the side that thinks it works, and you're wrong, I don't know if we'll ever know for sure, right?
Are we ever going to know for sure?
But let's say we could know for sure someday.
If you're wrong about ivermectin, it's going to be really embarrassing.
Because the setup here is that...
Let me just say what Chris Eliza said on CNN... Normally I don't agree with him, and I'm not saying I agree with him here, but the way he worded it is worthy of repeating.
He said, owning the elites by taking a horse pill, so I guess ivermectin is often used in veterinarian work.
So owning the elites by taking a horse pill rather than getting the vaccine is really a telling commentary on just how much blind partisanship has taken over among Trump conservatives.
Telling and terrifying.
Owning the elites by taking a horse pill rather than getting a vaccine, that's pretty brutal.
Now, what if he's wrong?
What if Chris Eliza is the one who's wrong?
Well, the joke's on you, Chris, because if it turns out that vaccines are bad and ivermectin is great, he's going to have a little egg on his face, except that it won't be as easy to mock him because he's on the same side as, you know, science. So you don't want to be on the wrong side of science and also be promoting something that other people can reasonably call a horse pill.
So persuasion-wise, this is no longer a balanced situation.
If it turns out that the chrysalis of the world who think the vaccination is real and good and ivermectin is not, if he turns out to be wrong...
It's still not that embarrassing for him because he was agreeing with the entire scientific community.
Not entire, but, you know, the consensus.
So if you agree with the consensus and you're wrong, it's not too embarrassing.
But what happens if you take a radically different opinion from the consensus and then you're wrong?
Not so good, right?
You don't want to be the one pushing the horse pills if it turns out to be wrong.
So one of the things you have to look at with persuasion is who's got the bigger downside?
Because we don't like downside, right?
So Chris Eliza is taking a bet with not much of a downside.
If he's wrong, well, so are a lot of other people.
But boy, if you take the ivermectin side, you're wrong.
You're the one pushing a horse pill because you were so partisan that you couldn't believe the other side, I guess.
Personally, I would say that I don't believe...
I would say every day that goes by when ivermectin is not proven to be effective reduces the chances that it is.
Because, you know, I don't know one way or the other...
But I'd say every day that goes by, I would lower my odds.
Same as I did with hydroxychloroquine.
Every day that went by when it wasn't proven to work, I said, well, I think the odds are going down every day.
And sure enough, we still do not have evidence it does.
But there's some high-ranking doctor in some medical association in Japan...
Who is saying ivermectin, he still doesn't know if it works.
He's not saying it works.
He says the evidence is ambiguous.
But he's promoting it based on the cost-benefit analysis.
So that would be a big break with the rest of the medical community.
I don't think it's necessarily government policy.
It was just the head of some medical organization.
We've got 100,000 people hospitalized with COVID in the United States.
We just broke last year's record.
We're about at it.
It's actually worse than last year.
But does it seem worse?
Why is it worse than last year, but it doesn't seem worse?
Well, some of it's the way it's reported, right?
Because once again, 100,000 people hospitalized.
How many are going to die?
Isn't that really different from last year?
Wouldn't it be more fair to say X people died last year, and this year very, very much fewer will die because of vaccinations and whatever, and also because weaker people have already died?
So a lot of people who could die from the vaccines are already dead.
Not from the vaccines, but from the COVID. And here's a statistic that I didn't know this, but see if you did.
That 48% of the U.S. is still not fully vaccinated?
Did you know that?
I thought the number was much higher by now.
I figured we were in a 60-plus percentage of already vaccinated fully.
But where 48% are not fully vaccinated?
That feels like a gigantic number, doesn't it?
Wouldn't you say, could you not say that...
Well, I suppose it depends on your point of view.
But if the Biden administration is trying to convince you to get vaccinated, this is a complete failure, isn't it?
Wouldn't you say? 48% not fully vaccinated looks like a complete failure, given the time and the fact that we have vaccinations.
So persuasion-wise, how many people did the fake news kill?
You see where I'm going with this?
Why do you think that so many people are not vaccinated in the United States?
I think that so many people are not vaccinated because there's no trust whatsoever in institutions.
What is it that primarily has caused us to not trust institutions?
What is the one thing that makes people so skeptical of everything?
And maybe they should be. It's the news.
And it's the news dividing everything into a partisan world.
And that partisan stuff works great if all you're doing is talking about politics.
It's fun that way.
But as soon as you get into a medical discussion and the world divides into its two camps, you just killed 100,000 people.
Right? Because you divided people into political camps so they made a political decision on a medical decision.
If you make a political calculation on your own medical decision, you're not going to get the right outcome.
You need to make a medical decision on your medical decisions, right?
So I feel as if you could make a case, and I believe that after all this is said and done, that people are going to do all kinds of economic studies and death studies to find out who killed the most people.
How many people did I kill?
It's not zero. Probably.
It's probably not zero.
Right? Like, how many people did I personally kill because of anything I said that had some influence on somebody who made a decision they wouldn't have made?
Probably not zero.
Right? Because enough people watch this that there's probably a few people who died of COVID. And maybe they didn't need to.
Maybe I said something wrong.
I don't know what that would be exactly.
But maybe I said something wrong and killed somebody.
That's very possible. Because that's sort of a risk that just comes with this kind of work.
But what about Trump?
How many people did Trump kill?
Well, it depends if he was right about stuff, or wrong about stuff, or if he didn't persuade enough, or if he persuaded too much on, say, hydroxychloroquine.
But you could probably figure out how many people he killed.
Or how many people he saved.
Maybe he saved more than he killed.
Then you look at the net. But I would think that the biggest kill statistic would be the news.
Because the business model of the news forces them into the two camps.
The two camps make people make bad medical decisions because they're really political decisions.
They're just dressing them up as medical decisions.
And then they die.
So I think the fake news probably killed 100,000 people in the United States.
And do you know where you'll never see that reported?
The fake news.
So the news is the only industry that can kill 100,000 people and you'll never hear about it.
The world we live in.
All right. You may have heard that famous aging porn star Ron Jeremy has been indicted on 30 counts of sexual assault and a bunch of just horrible-sounding stuff.
And I had this observation about context.
Now, Ron Jeremy is famous for having nearly a foot-long penis.
If you didn't know that, now you do.
Now, here's how context makes a difference.
If I said to you, there's a famous porn star with a foot-long penis, you'd say to yourself, well, that sounds about right.
Sounds like he's got exactly the right profession.
Indeed, if I were to watch said entertainment, I would expect exactly that.
Exactly that. So, porn star, gigantic penis, it's a really good fit.
The trouble is, once you retire and you decide that you would rather look less like a retired porn star, and you like to make a change with your physical appearance, maybe exercise a little bit less, and turn it into something that looks less like a porn star and more like a, I don't know, a meth addict, sort of a homeless meth addict, I don't know if you've seen him lately.
It's not good. He looks like a hobo who's been in a fight.
Now, here's where context matters.
If you've got somebody who looks like a hobo on meth, and I told you that he had a 12-inch penis, you'd be twice as scared.
Am I right? Because it's not good.
Hey, there's a hobo on the side.
What's your first thought?
Hey, maybe I could give him a ham sandwich.
Because it's a hobo, maybe you'd like to help.
Help feed him. So you go and you make yourself a ham sandwich and you give it to the hobo and everybody wins.
But suppose I came and said to you, there's a hobo outside your door with a 12-inch penis.
Would you make him a sandwich?
I don't think so.
I don't think he gets the sandwich because he's a little too scary at that point.
That's all I'm saying. Speaking of huge dicks, Governor Newsom is looking to be in danger.
So if the recall gets 50% plus one vote, he's out, and the person with the next most votes of all the competitors is in.
At the moment, that would be Larry Elder.
I was looking at Larry Elder's motto, and apparently it's the one he settled on, which is, because we have a state to save.
And I'm looking at his profile on Twitter.
Because we have a state to save.
What do you think? How do you like that as a political motto for California specifically?
Because we have a state to save.
Like it or not.
What do you say? I like it.
It's short.
It's right to the point.
And it doesn't focus on a particular topic.
So here's a hypnosis persuasion trick.
If you said, I'm running for governor because we have these three problems, what do people say?
Well, a lot of people say, you know, those are not my top three problems, so I guess I don't need to vote for this guy.
But if you leave it open and you say we have a state to save, everybody fills in the blanks with what scares them the most.
And what scares me the most might be running out of water.
What scares someone else the most might be the forest fires or the homeless people or drugs.
So if you can make people fill in their own fear...
You have frickin' nailed it.
So, I have to say that my first impression, the first time I saw this, because we have a state to save, it felt a little flat.
It didn't have a little punch.
But the more I look at this...
It's really good.
Like, really good.
I'm wondering if he had some advice, or maybe EAB tested it, or whatever he did.
So that's just one thing it does right.
It makes you fill in the blanks of yourself of the state to save.
Secondly, it puts it in fear, persuasion, territory.
Because he's saying the state has to be saved.
So it's scary, right?
It's not just he'll do better.
He's bringing us hope and goodness.
It's not about the economy, stupid.
He's saving the state.
So it's a fear-persuasion play and appropriate to the situation.
There is a genuine fear that matches the public.
So he's got the fear in there.
He keeps it simple.
He matches the mood of the public, which is we're feeling the same.
And... And he leaves it ambiguous, so you fill in your best fear in there.
But, did you notice the first word?
Because. Because we have a state to save.
The first word is because.
Where have you seen that before?
I call it the fake because.
Because studies show that if you start something with the word because...
People think there's a reason there, and they respond to it.
He actually gave them a reason to vote for the recall and allow him in.
And you also fill in the reason, the because.
Now, we have a state to save, tries to hint you at the reason, but you're filling in your own reason.
So you are actually talking yourself into it through this slogan.
That's good. That's like really good.
It's something that allows you to fill in your own best slogan into his slogan.
I don't know if I've ever seen this before.
Well, you know, I guess you could argue that Make America Great Again had that quality because you did fill in, you filled in the blanks yourself.
But it wasn't fear stuff.
It was more hopeful.
All right. So I guess the best attack against Larry Elder, because of course the Democrats have to come after him, they've got some allegations from an ex about brandishing a gun.
Now, apparently there's no claim that he threatened anybody.
There's no claim he threatened anybody.
And there's no claim that he aimed his gun at anybody.
He brandished it. So I guess there was some point where he was, I don't know, checking the ammunition on his gun or something while having a conversation.
And I don't know if this stuff got conflated, but I don't think it matters.
And here's why. Nobody believes in X. Am I right?
Nobody believes anybody's X. If you heard somebody's X say that somebody brandished a gun, but no, they didn't threaten me with it.
No, he didn't point it at me.
No, he didn't point it at me, and he didn't threaten me with it.
He just brandished it.
What's your first thought?
Bullshit, right? It's in the category of things that we sort of discount a little bit, because an ex is always saying shit about, you know, right?
What do you say about your ex?
Give me two sentences about whatever ex you exed last.
Not so good, right?
So nobody believes the X. If that's the best they have, I think he's in good shape.
Here's a question I asked on Twitter.
When did we stop crowing about electing the first black fill-in-the-blank?
The first black president?
The first black governor of California?
The first black Republican governor of California?
Don't you think that if Larry Elder were a Democrat...
All of the news coverage on CNN would be about, oh, we might get the first black Democrat president in California.
Don't you think they would just talk about that nonstop?
Yeah, they would.
But here you have something more historic.
What would be more historic than a black Republican winning in California?
Because you could say to yourself, oh, sure, you know, Tim Scott wins for the Senate, but, you know, I'm assuming he has a large black base.
Or you could say, sure, Obama won the presidency, but he had to get, you know, 90-plus percent of the black vote to do it.
You know, kind of special cases.
But what the hell is this special case of a black Republican in California?
That's the opposite of a special case.
This is like the first case where race didn't matter.
Right? Has that ever happened before?
Have we ever been in a situation where race was erased from the conversation?
Larry Elder just did that.
This is like one of the greatest accomplishments of any politician in the history of the universe.
Think about this.
Larry Elder... Took race out of the conversation.
Why? Because he didn't put it in the conversation.
He never put it in there.
So I would say that Larry Elder has accomplished something more special than any politician has ever accomplished.
He took race out of the conversation.
I mean, that's crazy. Who else has ever done that?
And how did he do it?
He didn't do it by what he said.
He did it by who he is.
He did it by living the life he lives.
By being the person he is, he took it right off the table.
I mean, think about that.
Who has ever done that before in the history of politics?
Nobody. Nobody's ever done that.
And we're going to ignore it.
Joe Lonsdale asked me on Twitter, he said, curious why more people like you aren't talking about the elephant in the room.
That they've changed the rules in California to send ballots ahead of time to everyone and allow unions to go door-to-door to help millions of people with them, which makes the recall very unlikely to pass.
What do you think? Do you think that the rules changes are what elect our presidents?
I think yes.
We don't really live in a system where votes determine presidents anymore.
We live in a system in which the rule changes to determine the present.
So if that happens in this case, it will be a giant recall in which the votes didn't matter.
We would have spent, I don't know what, two years on a recall to find out that the fucking votes didn't matter.
And that's sort of where we might be.
Now, I happen to think that there is so much dislike of Newsom that the polls are misleading.
I believe Elder's going to win.
And I don't think the rules changes, while significant, I don't even think the rule changes can get there.
Maybe. I mean, Newsom's saying it's a turnout election, and he could be totally right about that.
So we'll see. So it looks like COVID is permanent now.
What would you feel about China if you knew that the pandemic they released, or we believe they released, what if it's permanent?
How does that change what you think about what needs to be done?
If it's permanent, that feels different, doesn't it?
It's one thing that they killed 600,000 people in America.
If it passes, right?
And it gets better. But what if it doesn't?
I don't know. There may be some big reckoning coming here with China.
CNN is still using what I call the anecdotal brainwashing technique, in which instead of reporting statistics, they report, this one guy had this problem.
And then they try to persuade you that the one guy tells you something about the big picture.
Of course it doesn't. Unless it's a coincidence.
But here are their offerings just for today.
They do this every single day.
Here's the headline. Fitness trainer declined vaccine.
Stunning photos show what happened to him.
It's going to be a whole bunch of guy didn't want to take vaccine.
Well, he's sorry now.
Isn't this guy sorry?
There'll be one every day, I'll bet you.
Here's another one. Quote, I had to turn away a cancer patient that needed an emergency treatment, Florida oncologist Dr.
Blaba Periani told CNN. Same trick, right?
There's this one doctor who had to turn away one patient.
Now, do you think the patient went home and died?
Because it was an emergency treatment for cancer.
So when he got turned away from the hospital, did he just go home and die?
No. No, they don't mention what happened to him.
He probably drove an extra five miles to another hospital.
Got the life-saving...
probably. I mean, I don't know.
But I would say this is a misleading anecdote.
Edward Snowden is writing about Apple's new OS that apparently will spy on your photos on your phone and alert the police if you've got a lot of bad stuff there.
I'm thinking, you know, various illegal porn, etc., What do you feel about Apple having an algorithm that will alert the police based on the pictures on your phone?
What do you think about that?
That's pretty bad. That's about as bad as it gets.
And weirdly, Apple is the privacy company.
But they're also the anti-porn company.
So they do have two branding things that are in conflict here.
And I don't know.
I guess it depends what you feel about underage photos on people's phones.
Now, if you think that's the biggest problem in the world, then you'd be in favor of this, maybe.
If you think privacy being eroded is a bigger problem, well, you'd be on the other side.
Obviously, I'm not in favor of those pictures on anybody's phones, but you have to look at Apple's privacy situation, and it looks...
It does look like an overreach.
In my opinion, it's a rare, gigantic mistake by Apple.
So that's my opinion. I would say gigantic mistake.
I would also say that I don't think Steve Jobs would have done it.
Because it feels like a gigantic mistake.
And I think he would have felt it.
Because he was a little bit more intuitive about the psychology of things.
Apparently employees are quitting in record numbers because they kind of liked working remotely and the thought of going back to work just seemed so horrible that 68% of job separations were people quitting.
And one in three workers, this is from Media Insider, a tweet, one in three workers are considering leaving their jobs while 60% of them are rethinking their careers.
Talk about a reboot of Basically, this is something I tell you a lot.
This is another persuasion trick.
People can get used to anything.
So you tell people, hey, your commute's going to be half an hour.
And they're like, ah, I hate that, but it's half an hour.
And then traffic gets worse, and they're like, hey, your commute is 45 minutes.
And you're like, well, it was already half an hour.
Now it's 45 minutes. I guess I can handle that.
Next thing you know, you change jobs.
But your commute's going to be an hour if you change jobs.
And you're like, well, it was already 45 minutes.
So what's an hour?
I think you can just get used to things because they gradually happen.
And I think that people realized they had been living a nightmare...
Of driving two hours each day to and from work.
It's just a nightmare. And when they got to work remotely, they just said, I'd rather starve to death than do this again.
So I think that the reboot of the pandemic just changed how people just see their whole lives.
And you see it coming through the employment stuff.
Apparently, Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, lawyers about the alleged election fraud, a federal judge ordered sanctions against them for their Trump-aligned lawsuits challenging the election.
And I guess the reasoning here is that there are lawsuits who are so frivolous and ridiculous that they need to be sanctioned for that.
Now, if you are...
Checking people's predictions.
What was my prediction when I heard Sidney Powell and Linwood say that they had discovered that the software was, I don't know, somehow being manipulated, it had something to do with Venezuela and all that.
What did I say when you first heard that?
Now remember, I was on Trump's side, right?
I was on Trump's side.
And then I heard these claims, and I said, complete bullshit.
Hey, Carrie, thanks for the buck 49.
And... I don't know.
This is what I predicted.
So check your predictions.
In the comments, how many...
We don't know yet, right?
So who knows? But I'm only talking about the Venezuela dictator stuff that was, in my opinion, was obvious bullshit on the surface.
You didn't need to wait for that.
That was obvious. Now, whether or not there's any shenanigans in the election, I think that's an open question, because we can't check everything.
But in terms of the biggest Kraken-style things, I called bullshit on day one, and it looks like that will be right.
How many of you were right or wrong about that?
If we assume that there's nothing to the Venezuela part, and I think that feels safe at this point...
No, I'm not saying it's BS because a judge said so.
I'm saying that it's BS because by now we would know if there was anything to it.
And we don't. My guess is that they were fed some misinformation by somebody who wanted to discredit them exactly the way it happened.
I feel like that was an intel or somebody aligned with them.
Something like that. There were some dirty tricks involved in duping these two into thinking that these ridiculous claims had some merit.
So, anyway, check your predictions.
Were you right on that one or not?
All right. Let me make sure that I've addressed all of the fascinating things in today's news and did not talk too much about those topics you hate.
So, now that I've gone a few days without talking about the forbidden topics, the ones which make you turn off this live stream, you know what they are.
Better or worse? Give me some feedback.
All right? So I didn't do any deep vaccination stuff.
I mean, you have to mention it because it's in the news.
But I didn't do any deep vaccination thoughts or any deep mask stuff.
People on...
Somebody says worse.
Well done. On the locals platform, it's universally they like it better.
So it looks like 100% there.
YouTube, a little more muted, but also it seems like people are on the same side.
You know, here's the thing I want to ask you, though.
I want to ask you this.
You love the angry ignorant.
Somebody said talk about vaccines more because I love the angry ignorant.
Now, I'm not sure which side you're calling the ignorant, so that's the fun part.
But that is the fun of it.
The fun of it had nothing to do with whether you should do those things.
It was only exposing people's thought process.
We need the age of those dying from COVID.
That is right.
You know, I also wonder how many people are left.
You know, if the only people who die of COVID are the, you know,.001% or whatever, don't you get all of them pretty quickly?
Or don't you get half of them pretty quickly?
I feel as if we would just burn through the people who could be killed by it, and you would just run out of victims after a while.
Talk about how India beat the Delta with only 4% of X rate.
I don't think that happened.
Most of what you see on the Internet about countries is wrong.
I'd say more than 60%.
I would say anything you see on the Internet that says country X had this experience, automatically wrong.
Let me give you some examples of things which are in the category of almost always wrong.
You ready? You're not going to like this.
I'll give you an example and you tell me if you think that they're usually right or usually wrong.
There's a rogue doctor who made a video saying that all the experts got it wrong and what they're recommending is going to make it worse for you.
That's all you know. I'm not referring to any specific doctor.
I'm saying there's just a pandemic...
Just imagine, this is just imaginary, there's a rogue doctor and he's telling you that everybody got it wrong.
What are the odds that the rogue doctor is right and everybody got it wrong?
Give me the odds. I want odds.
I don't want words. Put a number on it.
I'm going to read some of your numbers.
90%, 5%, 20%, 80%.
Look at that difference.
95%, 5%, 10%.
5 to 0, 0, 5%.
I'll give you my estimate.
95% chance it is not right.
The lone doctor or the three doctors, any viral clip of the doctors disagreeing with the majority, in my opinion, based on life, 95% chance is bullshit.
5% chance you really have something.
And if it's that 5%, it's world-changing.
I mean, it's a big, big, big, big deal if they're right.
But 95% of the time, they're not.
Likewise, let's say you see a story about Sweden having a certain outcome.
How much should you trust the internet report of Sweden?
Any country. It doesn't matter what country it is.
Israel, India, whatever country you think you can't explain.
What are the odds that that story or the data about that one country is accurate and telling you something useful?
No more than 5%.
Everything about individual countries is bullshit.
Just all of it.
So those are categories of things where you should automatically just say, well, it could be, and maybe we should pay attention, and if the argument is good, maybe you follow it up a little bit.
But Dr.
Chang says, we listen to...
Dr. Chang Zhe, we listen to Sweden press conference.
It's true. It's true because you listen to a press conference.
Are you a Chinese spy?
Are you... Because you look like a Chinese spy to me.
Now, here's an interesting question.
At least on the YouTube feed, how many Chinese spies, you know, trolls, are following this right now?
I mean, I have to think I'm in the top ten American anti-China...
Persuaders. So if they're not following me, I don't know who they would follow.
