Episode 1515 Scott Adams: The News is Dreadful and Boring But We'll Have Fun Talking About it Anyway
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Britney Spears freedom
Elon Musk sending silver medal to Jeff Bezos
Chris Hayes ALL CAPS tweet!!!
Attack ad against Governor DeSantis
Fallacy of vaccination double risk
Triggering binaries with a 3rd opinion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Is it there? I'm working on a drum opening for the show.
Sort of like a Tucker Carlson drum thing where he opens his show, but different.
You know, my own thing. It'll be about 10 seconds long, so I'm working on that.
But, you know, if you'd like to enjoy today...
To the maximum potential.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen, a jug, a flask of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
Well, I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Can you feel it?
Can you feel it already?
Things getting better?
Yeah, you can feel it.
Go. Ah, the caffeine climax.
The thing that makes everything better, as I said.
I think you're feeling better right now, aren't you?
Well, Boo the Cat is continuing to do better.
She's not eating on her own, but she's having a good time.
She looks healthy. So I'm hearing more about the combination of Bitcoin and Bitcoin.
Power plants. Nuclear power plants, coal power plants, gas power plants.
So it turns out that Bitcoin is a really good combo with power plants that don't operate at their peak all the time.
Now, I heard a claim that I'm a little suspicious of.
So here's the claim.
That a coal plant, a coal-fired, coal-energy-producing plant...
It's actually going to produce less carbon if it operates continuously than if it just gets fired up and taken down based on load and demand.
Do you think that's true?
I don't know. Yeah, I'm seeing somebody say it's true.
I don't feel like that's true.
But I'm going to treat it like it's true for the point of today.
But my economics...
BS detector says, I get the point.
I understand the point that there's a startup cost, per se, and a shutdown cost, per se, and that they're so great that it's not worth it.
Maybe. Maybe.
But I'm going to say that all of my instincts doubt that's true.
Not 100%.
But a serious skepticism about that.
However, people believe it's true, apparently, and so the opportunity to use the Bitcoin mining to keep all of our power plants operating at whatever is their optimal rate seems like a good combo.
So you get the Bitcoin money for free, basically, because you've got a power plant that wasn't doing much in that time.
Free is an exaggeration.
It's not free, obviously. Yeah, apparently you can still, at least one Bitcoin miner says that the cost of mining one Bitcoin is about $3,000.
Whereas the Bitcoin itself might be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $40,000.
So the margins are pretty good if you got yourself a big old power plant you can use.
Well, by the way, I should warn you that none of the news is super interesting today.
I mean, I'll do what I can.
Yes, Butters, you did miss the sip.
Hey, everybody, Butters just came in on YouTube and missed the sip.
Would anybody mind if we do just a special one for Butters?
Butters, get your cup.
I will not disappoint you today, Butters.
Half of the reason I'm going to do this for you is because your username is Butters.
Possibly one of the best usernames I've ever seen, Butters.
Well, Butters, this is the special simultaneous sip without the preamble, just for you.
Everybody, lift your glass.
Butters is in the house.
This is for you, Butters.
Yeah, that's good.
I'm so glad you came, Butters.
You made all of us happier.
I don't know, are you always like that, Butters?
When you enter a room, does everybody just smile?
They get happier? Something tells me that you're like a good force in the world.
See, as soon as Butters came in here, everything got better, didn't it?
You were sitting here thinking, you know what I'd really need is another sip.
I'd really like that.
And then Butters comes in and makes it happen.
Like nothing. We need more people in the world...
Like butters. And fewer people like Britney Spears' father who had been enslaving her in a conservatorship with her $60 million fortune.
Does that seem low to you?
Doesn't Britney Spears with only $60 million...
I say only. It seems low, doesn't it?
What happened to all of her money?
I'm not sure anybody can estimate anybody else's money.
I've seen my own net wealth estimated in public.
Not so close.
They're just purely guesses.
But anyway, so Britney Spears has her life back, so she doesn't have this conservatorship.
At least her dad's not part of it.
And she's celebrated with an Instagram post where she's taking flying lessons.
Britney Spears is taking flying lessons.
Now, have I told you that the simulation reveals itself with code reuse?
Code reuse, yeah.
I mean, most of you probably know that Christina, my wife, took flying lessons.
She's a pilot now.
And now Brittany's doing that.
I don't know how many people we hear about taking private flying lessons, but I do love the fact that Brittany, I saw this in the comments, somebody said that she went from the most restricted person you could think of, because of the conservatorship, to literally flying.
Literally, like, flying through the air anywhere she wants to go eventually.
That's a pretty big change.
So good for her.
Why is it that we all like Britney Spears?
Have you ever wondered that?
Somebody says, I don't.
You don't like Britney Spears?
Seriously? How could you not like her?
I mean, you could not like her music.
I mean, that would be normal. Everybody has different musical tastes.
But doesn't she seem like just sort of a good person who's just trying to get by and she's got some personal problems like many of us?
I don't know. Everything about her, I kind of like.
Yeah, she's just likable.
So here's some more news about the nation's hottest governor.
If I say the nation's hottest governor, who am I talking about?
Let's see if we all have...
Yeah, okay. Took you about half a second to...
Somebody said DeSantis.
Ron DeSantis, the hottest governor.
Well, he saw it in a different way.
So we're going to be totally sexist and talk about Governor Kristi Noem, who, in addition to being politically quite successful, it must be noted, is unusually attractive.
Now, this, of course, is positive and negative.
It probably helps her politically, I would imagine.
But now she's being dragged into the news, so she's happily married, and just the worst frickin' thing happened.
See, notice I said frickin'.
See, I'm learning. I'm growing.
I'm becoming a better person right in front of you.
I could have used the F word, but no, I went with frickin'.
So she's being accused of having an extramarital affair with former Trump advisor Corey Lewandowski.
Now, apparently there's more...
Looks like there's more truth to the fact that it didn't happen, there's nothing to it, than there is that it did.
But, of course, we're seeing all of the lieutenants being taken out in anticipation.
Thanks, Fred.
That's an unusual amount of a tip there.
$13.99 for that comment.
Totally worth it. But anyway...
Here's what's creepy about this story.
A few things.
Number one, here's a public servant who looks like a happily married woman with a family.
And because she's attractive, the world is trying to take her down.
And they're matching her with Corey Lewandowski.
Now, let me ask you this.
If you were the hottest governor...
And let's just say she's not even just hot for a governor, but she is unusually attractive for a human being.
This is important to the story.
It has nothing to do with my personal opinions.
I know somebody in the comments always says, Scott, you're in law.
It has nothing to do with me.
Keep me out of the story. It's just a fact that she's unusually attractive and it's part of the story.
Now, if you were unusually attractive...
I mean, like everybody's talking about it attractive, that kind of attractive?
Would you want to be paired in a rumor with Corey Lewandowski?
Now, I don't want to be unkind.
I'm not what you'd call a good-looking guy myself, so I feel like I'm not being condescending when I say this.
Corey Lewandowski is sort of like my people.
You know what I mean? Right?
Like, if you heard that Christy Noem was rumored to be having an affair with me, like actually me, it'd be a lot like hearing it was Corey Lewandowski, right?
What's the first thing you'd say to yourself?
Couldn't she do a little better than that?
Right? Wouldn't you think if she were inclined to have an affair, which apparently she did not have, so let me be as clear as possible, there doesn't seem to be truth to the rumor.
And I would say that I'm super skeptical about it.
I doubt it. But imagine the double insult that not only do you have to deal with this stupid rumor and your husband and all this stuff, I mean, it seems very inconvenient, but they paired her with Corey Lewandowski.
Seriously? You couldn't find a better-looking guy to throw into that rumor?
Somebody who you would also say, you know...
She might be one of the most attractive politicians we've ever seen.
Who would be the equivalent that at least you'd say, well, maybe.
Maybe. So I think the best thing about this story is that...
Do any of you believe it?
Do any of you believe it?
How many of you believe this story that Kristi Noem would have an affair with Corey Lewandowski?
And again, I don't mean to insult Corey Lewandowski...
So Corey Lewandowski is just sort of the ordinary guy, sort of the same category I'm in.
Just, you know, ordinary guys.
We're not monsters, but nobody's going to say, let me put your picture on my wall.
You know, nothing like that. So, yeah, I don't...
I don't see anybody believing it here.
Okay, good for you.
Good for you. Everybody who doesn't believe that, you're on the right track.
But super sexist and unfair to Cristino, who is doing nothing but trying to mind her own business.
But here's the side story to this.
The side story is funnier than the main story.
The side story is that Politico...
Uses this opportunity to go after Corey Lewandowski for a completely unrelated claim.
There's some other woman who was married to a big donor, a Republican donor.
The report is, again, low credibility.
These are all low credibility reports.
Don't assume any of this is true.
But it's being reported, so I'll tell you about it.
And the accusation is that Corey Lewandowski got drunk and he was getting a little handsy with some donor's wife at a dinner and said some inappropriate things.
So that's the story.
But here's the funny part of the story.
The name of the woman, who was the wife of the big donor that Corey Lewandowski allegedly was sexually annoying, her first name, I'm not making this up, Trash L., T-R-A-S-H-E-L-L-E. Now, obviously, her parents expected a boy.
And the boy's name, I'm assuming, would have just been Trash.
Trash Odom. But because they got a girl instead, she was Trash L. Trash L. Is that a real name?
I feel like...
I feel like maybe they don't love their daughter if they named her Trash L. Exactly what kind of conversation was that?
When they were looking through the baby names, they were like, okay, Jennifer, Ashley, Savannah.
Oh, here's one. How about Trash L.? Now, when you name a child, it is your responsibility to consider all the things that that child's schoolmates will say about that child's name in the future.
Am I right? You do have a responsibility.
For example, in my town, where I grew up, there was a kid whose last name was Cass.
C-A-S-S. Cass.
And the parents named the kid John.
That's not bad. Right, John?
John Cass. That's a pretty good name.
What they didn't count on is that since the father's name was also John, I believe, they decided to call the son Jack.
That's right. They literally named their son Jack Cass.
Jack Cass. That actually happened in my town.
This is somebody I knew well.
I'm not making this up. A real person named Jack Cass.
Now... Again, trash hell.
I have nothing against you, trash hell, so this is not personal.
You didn't name yourself, I guess.
But your parents.
Sit down and have a talk with your parents.
I feel like they're...
maybe you weren't so happy about having a baby.
How's the baby? Trash?
Trash hell? Well, Elon Musk continues to entertain...
Apparently he passed Jeff Bezos again.
They've been trading first place for richest person in the world.
And Musk was asked about it.
And Musk said he'll send Bezos a silver medal.
That's like a big number, too.
He's going to send him a giant statue of a big number, too.
Now, here's...
Here's what I love so much about this, and maybe something I love about Musk as well, just as a public character.
You're not really supposed to brag about how rich you are, right?
If you're the richest person on the whole planet...
You're really not supposed to be bragging about it.
And I don't think he is, exactly.
I think he's joking about it, not bragging about it.
But he's joking about it by bragging about it, by saying that he'll give Bezos a silver medal, which is one of the funniest things I've ever heard.
Because getting a silver medal for being the second richest person on the planet Earth is just a funny concept.
And the fact that Musk gets free marketing and publicity by saying stuff like this...
It's just wonderful.
Anyway, so I just point that out.
But here's the other thing.
So now that Musk has over $200 billion, at least on paper, he's going to be the first billionaire.
Do you realize that?
If you take Musk's age, and then you see how many times you can add 10 years to it, If you assume that his wealth doubles every 10 years, which would be conservative, actually.
That would be conservative. In 20 years, it would double twice.
So it's going to be 400 and then 800.
He's going to be a trillionaire.
He's going to be the first one.
Unless, you know, Bezos pulls ahead or somebody else pulls ahead.
But literally, Elon Musk will be our first trillionaire.
That's pretty cool. All right, um...
I realized yesterday that I should share with you my stock conflicts of interest.
Do you think I should do that?
Let me ask your opinion. When somebody does what I do, which is I talk about companies and politics and stuff like that, I feel like I should tell you what stocks I own because that could inform you about my bias, right?
So I thought I'd do that.
I don't know if I have any obligation to do this, but it feels like it'd be fair.
Oh, that was funny. So here are the stocks, which this is not all my stocks, just ones that might have some conflict of interest.
So yesterday I bought, and by the way, these are not stock recommendations.
Do not take these as financial advice.
I'm just telling you my conflicts of interest.
I do not recommend these stocks to anybody.
I bought some Regeneron stock yesterday.
Again, I don't recommend it.
It's a small part of my portfolio.
Just sort of a few companies that I'm just gambling on.
So I would say that's more of a gamble than an investment.
But I have a small gamble on Regeneron.
So if I talk about Regeneron, keep that in mind.
Likewise, I have an investment in the Israel Index Fund of Israeli companies.
I've mentioned this before.
It's not the first time I'm saying it in public.
But I do have a fairly sizable investment in Israeli companies.
The thinking there is that it's sort of the Silicon Valley of the world.
So basically, I'm betting on their security situation continuing to improve and on their education system and their entrepreneurial system.
Producing. And so far, I've doubled my money in Israeli stocks.
So if I talk about Israel, you'll know that I have a financial interest.
Now, I was pro-Israel before I invested.
So I don't think my investments made me pro-Israel.
I've always been pro-Israel.
But you should be aware of it.
Now, here are the tech stocks that I also bought at the...
When we had the COVID dip, so at the bottom of...
God, my nose is itching, sorry.
At the bottom of the COVID pullback when the stock's all tanked, I bought a bunch of tech companies.
I bought Tesla.
So I talk about Tesla, but you should know that I also own some stock.
Amazon, Apple, Twitter...
Snapchat, which went up 400% since I bought it in the pullback, and Microsoft.
Now, again, I'm not recommending any of the stocks.
They were just stocks that tanked, and I figured it was a good buying opportunity, so I owned them.
So when I talk about any of those stocks, remind yourself that I own stock in them.
All right. That's why you liked...
So that's exactly the kind of comment you should make.
So I saw in the comments, that's why you liked Musk's comment, because you have Tesla stock.
Well, I don't think so.
I don't think that's why I like his comment.
I think I just like his comment.
But it's exactly the right question.
So you should hold that in your head that I could be biased and I wouldn't know it.
Well, what is wrong with us collectively as people when there are three stories in the news today?
One is about a guy killing his wife and two of them are about a mother killing her children.
Now, there's a lot of crime and killing in the world, but why do these three stories become national news with all the murders and killing and stuff?
And how many of these people are white people?
Oh, all of them.
Oh, all of them. They're all white people.
Really? There weren't any black people lately that have any kind of, you know, tragedy that would be newsworthy?
Only white people had newsworthy tragedies, right?
Now, I think if you've been watching me for a while...
You know I'm not the social justice warrior, everything's got to be equal, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But I do feel like the complaint that this is about, you know, white people missing is pretty close to the mark.
Right? Now, I get that it's based on how many people are going to click on it so that the news is just following the public.
But between the news and the public, it does seem like it's excluding a lot of the country.
Is that not fair? Does anybody disagree with that comment?
It feels like that, right?
Like, no matter how opposed you are to political correctness, the coincidence starts to pile up after a while.
Kind of hard to ignore. But I'm even more appalled by the fact that we find this entertaining, that we click on it.
Do you click on these stories about somebody killed a family member?
I try not to click on those.
I don't like to reward that.
I don't like to mention the names, dwell on the details.
This just shouldn't be news.
I'll tell you what should be news.
Have you seen the viral video of the Florida man who trapped an alligator with a garbage bin and actually got the alligator in the garbage bin by putting it on the side and shoving it into the alligator and the alligator goes wild and ends up in the bin?
And he pulls it up and he's actually captured an alligator in a garbage bin.
Now, I love the fact that it starts with a Florida man.
Because you know the running joke.
Any story that starts with a Florida man is going to be a wacky story.
You know there's going to be some crazy stuff going on if it starts with a Florida man, in the news, a Florida man trapped an alligator with a garbage can.
There are a lot of fun stories coming out of Florida, I'll tell you.
Well, here's an update on permanent news.
Permanent news. The news that never changes, even when the day changes.
Well, and this will surprise you, but it turns out that the infrastructure bill stalled.
Did anybody see that coming?
I know, surprise.
The infrastructure bill is stalled.
Again today. Like yesterday and the day before.
It's always a different reason. Although Joe Manchin's been a big part of the reason lately.
Yeah, so it's stalled.
That's the whole story. Chris Hayes commented on Twitter in all caps.
So you know he's serious about this.
All caps, folks.
Hold on. Put on your seatbelt.
I'm going to read this tweet that's written in all caps intentionally.
It's going to blow you right out of your chair.
Here it is. And I have to read it the way all caps must be read.
If it were a regular tweet, I'd be like, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
But it's all caps, so I have to read it like that.
There is no brutal fiscal reality the nation faces.
It is entirely made up.
Now, he's talking about Joe Manchin saying that there's a brutal fiscal reality that we can't spend trillions of dollars without getting in trouble.
Whereas Chris Hayes says there is no brutal fiscal reality.
What could be more of a difference of opinion than somebody thinking we're spending trillions of dollars and somebody else also educated, also follows the news, and...
Sorry, I just saw a comment that just completely threw me off my game there.
So which is true?
Can we spend trillions of dollars, and it's free because it pays for itself, or does it just cost us trillions of dollars and we're all dead?
Those could not be more different, could they?
How in the world could both of those movies be playing on the same screen?
Now, I get... When people say, oh, Trump's a monster, and then other people say he's the savior, I see how those movies can play on the same screen.
But how in the world does one movie see trillions of dollars and one movie see nothing?
How do you get that?
Well, we have massive economic ignorance.
That's how you get it. All right?
Now, as I tell you way too often, I have a degree in economics.
I've got an MBA. And I don't know the answer to this question.
I'm not even close to the answer.
The answer to the question is, can we spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure, and is it free, or will it destroy the country?
I don't know. I don't know.
I don't even have a good guess.
To me, it would be kind of a coin flip.
50-50? I mean, based on the fact that I don't have any hint which way this goes.
What do you think? And by the way, let me say this as clearly as possible.
You don't know, right?
If you have a degree in economics, let me know in the comments and then tell me your opinion.
But for most of you, you don't have any kind of degree in economics.
So you definitely don't know if spending the trillion dollars is free or destroys the country because we don't have trillions of dollars that we could borrow.
I mean, we could borrow it, but maybe we can't pay it back too easily.
Economists are often wrong.
That's right. But at least they would understand the question better.
You know, they might get the wrong answer, but at least they'd understand the question.
Honestly, I have a bad feeling about it, somebody says.
Right, if it's free, why would you stop?
Why would you stop at 3.5?
Why not 10 trillion?
It's free. So...
I think the answer is probably not either extreme, right?
It's not free, and it's probably not going to destroy the country.
If you don't know, why risk it?
Oh, there we go. So Brandon, I believe, has an economics degree and asked this reasonable question.
If you don't know if it could destroy the country, why risk it?
That's a really good answer.
Now, that's somebody who's an economist.
That is a perfect economist response.
If you don't know if it would be good or bad, why would you do it?
That's a really good question.
I think most of us agree that if you did just the infrastructure part, you probably come out ahead, or at least you needed the infrastructure.
Even if it didn't pay for itself, you still have to do it.
But when you get to the larger $3.5 trillion, If you don't know it's going to work, why would you do it?
Of course, we don't know any of our plans are going to work, right?
So to be fair, it's always a calculated risk.
But if we don't have any visibility at all, Usually you're saying, okay, usually this sort of thing works, like vaccinations.
You know, we're not flying blind with vaccinations entirely, because, you know, we've developed drugs before, we have some intuition about things.
But with this debt stuff, we don't have any intuition about this.
There's no math and there's no intuition that can tell us if this makes sense.
I don't think the experts agree, right?
All right. Do you know if China is surplus or debt?
I think China doesn't have debt the way we do, right?
That's a good question. I don't know the answer to that.
I mean, lots of companies have debt over there, and that would be a problem, especially the real estate companies.
All right, Dr.
Interracial tweeted at me today to alert me to there's a new DNC campaign ad they're running to try to attack Ron DeSantis.
Now, that makes sense because they're going after, you know, the Corey Lewandowski's, the Ron DeSantis, trying to get ahead of, you know, the next elections and take down people they think are at risk.
But here's the funny part.
The Democrats' campaign ad against Ron DeSantis reads like a campaign ad for Ron DeSantis.
It is probably the worst conceived hit piece you've ever seen because you're watching it and you're thinking, I think I kind of like Ron DeSantis based on what I'm hearing.
And the campaign starts in an airplane that everybody's got their face masks on and the flight attendant says, we're entering Florida where you won't have masks and you don't have to get vaccinations and you can go anywhere you want.
And the implication...
Is that going to Florida is a big dangerous thing.
Because Ron DeSantis is ignoring all the science and doing dangerous stuff.
That's what they're trying to sell you.
But they missed the mark so badly that it comes off looking like a pro-DeSantis ad.
Because it basically says, Ron DeSantis will give you your freedom.
And we won't. I mean, that's what it says.
Ron DeSantis will give you your freedom.
Right? But we won't.
That's what the frickin' ad says.
How in the world did they think that was a good idea?
What kind of an insulated political life do you have that nobody told you this was a bad idea?
I mean, I think they just made Ron DeSantis president.
If you go to Florida, the governor will make sure you have freedom.
Come on! That's like the best thing you could ever say about this guy.
Yeah, they're so tone deaf.
Now, is this an example where the left only listens to themselves?
It must be, right? Because I feel like the right wouldn't have made this mistake.
When was the last time you saw a campaign ad from the right where you looked at it and you said, huh, this is working in the opposite direction.
It looks like the right doesn't even understand what the left is thinking.
You've never seen it.
Because the right understands the argument on the left.
They disagree with it, but they've heard it.
They've heard it.
And that's different.
Because the right knows what the left is at least talking about and thinking.
But the left has no idea what the right is thinking or talking about because they don't consume that media.
Yeah. So think about it.
Think about the fact that...
Democrats have consistently made ads that work against their own interests, and Republicans haven't.
And it's all different people.
It's definitely a Republican-Democrat difference.
Well, the Taliban is warning that there will be some kind of consequences if the U.S. keeps flying drones over Afghanistan, because that's violating their sovereignty.
To which I say, that is kind of violating their sovereignty, isn't it?
It does feel like that's pretty violating their sovereignty.
But, you know, of course we have legitimate security reasons to do it.
And I'm wondering, what exactly is the Taliban going to do about it?
I mean, I think we do it because we can, right?
There's nothing they can do about it.
They can't really shoot down our drones too easily, at least not yet.
So would they retaliate by sending drones over here?
Do you think you'll ever see a Taliban drone in the United States, you know, attacking something over here?
Maybe. Yeah.
It doesn't necessarily have to come from the Taliban, but you're definitely going to see drones attacking in the United States.
Probably the small ones, you know, the hobby ones.
All right. The numbers don't lie.
Have you ever learned that? The numbers don't lie.
So if you're going to look at the data to figure out, you know, let's say what country did better than some other country on COVID, you just look at the numbers.
Because the numbers don't lie, right?
As long as you have numbers, you know exactly what's going on.
Except, except this example.
I saw a tweet claiming, it doesn't matter who, because a number of people have done this, claiming that one of India's provinces, or whatever they're called, states or provinces, I don't know, had something like zero COVID deaths, and it's because of ivermectin.
How many times have you seen that?
There's some area in India that doesn't have any COVID because of ivermectin.
As soon as that ivermectin came in, boom!
The deaths went down to zero.
Have you heard that? Okay, none of it's true.
None of it's true.
And beyond that, apparently the death count in India might be undercounted by a factor of 10.
They think that 400,000 people in India died of COVID. It might be 4 million.
It might be 4 million.
Smart people are saying that it might be 4 million.
They just don't keep the records the same way we do.
I doubt it's 40 million.
But 4 million? Wow.
So anybody who thinks that ivermectin solved the problem in one of their areas would have to explain why the other areas are not using it already.
So that's your first question.
If it totally, definitely worked in this one area of India, why isn't all of India doing it?
Well, the answer is none of it's true.
The area that we're talking about, we don't know how many people died.
It's probably ten times as many as whatever is reported.
But secondly, just the numbers are all wrong.
Basically, everything about it is wrong.
And the area, Andres Beckhaus was pointing out, that if you added together the natural immunity in the area from pre-infections plus vaccinations, that explains the dip.
Right? And so many people in that area are either already infected or they got the vaccination that there weren't many people left to infect.
So, of course, it dropped.
It had nothing to do with ivermectin.
So if you see that it was ivermectin, that's not true.
Let me give you the worst argument I've seen.
Now, again, this isn't about vaccinations, yes or no.
This is about arguments, okay?
Okay. Again, I don't care if he vaccinated.
It's just about whether your argument is good.
Because I think there are good arguments both sides.
Have I ever said that outright?
Let me say it outright.
I think there are good arguments on both sides of this question.
But each of us have to make a decision.
And whatever decision you make, you're going to have to live with the fact that the other side had an argument.
It wasn't nothing. They did have an argument.
You could disagree with it.
I do disagree with the argument on the other side for my own risk profile.
Not for the rest of you.
You have to do your own. Anyway, here's the worst argument.
The vaccinated people have two risks, not one.
They have the risk of the COVID itself, because even if you're vaccinated, you can still get it.
You can still get long-haul COVID, maybe.
And then you'd have the risk of the vaccination itself on top of the risk of the virus.
So this was an actual tweet that getting vaccinated doubles your risk because now instead of the risk of just the virus, you also have the risk of getting vaccinated itself.
Wait, somebody's saying exactly.
You're not agreeing with that argument, are you?
I hope you're not. Nobody's agreeing with that, are they?
Because I set it up as the worst argument that anybody ever made.
But I think a few of you are agreeing with the argument.
Well, here's what's wrong with that argument.
Do I even need to tell you?
Do I even need to explain what's wrong with it?
Oh, I'm being asked to explain.
Okay. Okay.
This would be the same argument for anything good.
Name anything that you think worked to make you safer.
Seatbelts. If you add seatbelts, you've got the risk of the crash, because people with seatbelts still die, but then you have the added risk of the seatbelt.
What if the seatbelt hurts you?
That's two risks instead of one.
You only had a risk of dying in a car accident, But now you have a risk of dying in a car accident, because you can still die in one with seatbelts.
But on top of that, you have the risk of the seatbelt itself.
Two risks instead of one.
My point is, you can take anything good and just say it created two risks instead of one.
How about you go to the...
Let's say you have an illness.
You need a heart bypass.
Let's say you need a heart bypass.
So you've got a risk from the heart itself, and now you decide to get an operation.
That's two risks.
Twice as bad, right?
Now you've got a risk of the operation and the risk from the heart.
Every time you try to fix something, it introduces a new risk.
But that's not a reason not to do it.
You have to look at the total amount of risk.
It's not one and two.
You don't count risks as, here's one.
You have to see how much risk, right?
You don't just say, well, I've got two risks.
That's twice as much as one.
You have to look at the whole situation.
All right. I have a hypothesis about why it is that I trigger more cognitive dissonance than other people.
Now, first of all, I don't know that that's true, but observationally...
It seems that if you look at my Twitter feed, there's more cognitive dissonance than others.
Why is that? In the comments, if it's true, let's take it as a speculation, but assumption that it's true.
Why do I trigger more cognitive dissonance than the average commenter?
I'm resolute in my assertions?
No. Not that.
Maybe the opposite of that. You try harder, you intend to.
It's the topics I... It's something about the topics, surely.
The ambiguity? No.
The subtlety?
Okay, that's close.
Here's what I think. You've probably heard Greg Gottfeld talk about the tyranny of...
What is it called?
The prison of two ideas.
The prison of two ideas.
That there's just a yes and a no for every issue.
One of the things I do is I'll often find the third position.
The third position will always trigger cognitive dissonance.
If the world is decided, there are only two positions.
Because the third position is almost always the reasonable one.
The two-position world is when people just took sides.
If there are two positions that you can identify, it usually means the media just assigned those to you.
The left assigned one position, the right assigned another position, and people just accepted them.
But if you have a nuanced opinion, anything that looks like some kind of middle ground, both sides get triggered into cognitive dissonance.
So I triggered the left and the right at the same time, twice as much triggering.
So I don't think it's an accident...
That I get more cognitive dissonance because I'm triggering both sides.
Usually you're just trying to trigger one other side, but I'm triggering both sides at the same time.
Let me give you an example.
Now this doesn't necessarily apply to your opinion, right?
I'll just speak generally. So some people say vaccinations are good and you should all get them.
Other people say vaccinations might be dangerous.
You should maybe not get them.
So that's the prison of the two ideas.
I say vaccinations are probably good.
Can't be sure. Just my best guess.
I mean, we have no way to know for sure.
But probably. Probably good.
But you shouldn't necessarily get one.
That's the middle ground.
Vaccination's probably good.
And I decided to get one for myself.
But your profile's not my profile of risk.
So you don't need to do what I do.
And I certainly don't suggest that you do.
So as soon as you find that middle ground, the people on the right think you're siding with the left, which I'm not.
The people on the left think I'm siding with the right, which I'm not.
And then both of them are triggered into cognitive dissonance.
Because the middle ground almost always sounds more reasonable than either extreme.
So when people are talking about the extremes, that's usually just a trigger or a signal of cognitive dissonance.
All right, um... Here's an example of that.
John Grant on Twitter tweeted this at me today.
So look for the absolute.
John said, why do you...
Speaking about me. He said, why do you believe every prescription drug that isn't a mass killer like fentanyl must then be safe and effective?
What? How in the world can anybody watch any of my content...
And then characterize it as me believing that every prescription drug is safe and effective.
That could not be further from anything that I think is true.
But John Grant thinks he saw it as cognitive dissonance.
So it's somebody who believes there's an absolute in play when there's nothing like an absolute in play here.
So look for absolutes as your signal...
For cognitive dissonance.
Straw manning. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Yeah, aspirin would probably not be approved by the FDA if it came in today.
That's correct. Scott, you're a contrarian.
Am I? I don't know that I'm a contrarian.
I think contrarians are sort of automatic.
I'm not automatic.
I disagree with a lot of stuff, but not automatically.
I thought micro doses of fentanyl are used in surgery.
Yeah, in a medical context, it's very useful.
Yeah, they think I'm a contrarian because I'm not a joiner of either team.
Am I a provocateur?
I am, but I don't...
I don't know that I've ever tried to be that.
You can be a provocateur without that being your mission.
It just ends up being that way.
I'm just going to look at your comments for a few minutes.
Where's my iPhone made?
In China. So my view, again, here's another one of those.
This is a perfect example.
I'm seeing people question my use of an iPhone that's obviously assembled in China.
And What is my view about doing business with China?
Can anybody explain my view?
Do I have an extreme view that we should not do any business in China?
Or do I have an extreme view that we should do all the business that we want in China with no restrictions?
Am I on either of those extremes?
No. No.
I've said no new business.
That would be crazy.
And I've said repeatedly and consistently that if you're already over there, that's a whole different situation.
So I think Tesla and Apple, they have to satisfy their shareholders.
And I'm one of them.
I just told you.
I have shares of Apple and I have shares of Tesla.
As a shareholder, they do have a fiduciary responsibility to me.
And to the other shareholders.
And they have to figure out how to, within a legal context, they've got to figure out how to make us some money.
And they're kind of trapped over there.
I don't know if they have many options in the short run.
It's new business that I'd be concerned about, not the stuff that's already there.
So I don't ask them to change.
It's just not practical.
The economist and the The business person in me says, eh, that's too much to ask.
Nobody can really make that big of a change that quickly.
In the long run, yeah.
In the long run, would I like to see Tesla and Apple get out of China?
Oh, yeah. Yeah, and I'm hoping they're working on it.
But in the short run, not much you can do.
Um... Talk about Rawlings.
Oh, did Rawlings move to China?
Did that just happen?
If you have a link to a story about an American company moving business to China, you should send that to me.
Tweet that shit at me.
I'm sorry. Tweet that at me.
Jeep?
I haven't heard about that.
Here's another theory I have, that if we're a simulation, then some of us are NPCs, and one of the ways you might be able to tell an NPC is that they take absolute opinions. and one of the ways you might be able to questions.
Because if you were going to program NPCs, you'd keep it simple, wouldn't you?
You'd just have them pick one of the major opinions and stick with it.
I don't think you would add a lot of nuance to the NPCs.
The non-player characters that are part of a simulation.
So I feel like when you see somebody who's got cognitive dissonance because of an absolute opinion, maybe they're just non-player characters.
Look up NPC Oblivion compilation.
Well, that sounds interesting. Why would a simulation preclude...
Death?
I don't think it would.
Be careful.
In Bible study last night, it was pointed out that Jesus, Stephen, and Paul were all killed when the crowd couldn't answer their questions.
Yes.
Well, I suppose that could be my fate.
But at least I'd be a martyr.
Maybe somebody would write a Bible chapter about me.
Alright, I'm going to need to go and do some other things.
But I hope I am not blamed for the news not being that terribly interesting today.
I guess Biden was getting booed at the congressional baseball game, but there were probably just as many people cheering him, so I think that was fake news.
And, yeah, the Book of Scott.
Why not the Book of Scott?
Well, I tried to keep it light and curse-free and maybe give you some optimism about things today.
I'm going to take that as my direction from you.
Now, one of the things that I'm quite committed to with all of my work, really, is that if you do any kind of artistic content, and I guess, in a sense, this is some kind of art, if you're not changing it because of the audience reaction...
You're not really a good artist.
I think a good artist needs to be continuously, you know, polling the audience and finding out what you're doing wrong and correcting it.
So I'm going to try to correct my cursing, and I'm going to try to correct my negativity that I think slipped into my presentation.
And I'm glad that you were policing me on that, because I didn't need to add some negativity to a negative world.
I think the reason...
Maybe the one thing I could add is some positivity to a negative world.
Yeah, I know that many of you like the cursing, but here's the trade-off.
There's nobody who would sign on to watch this because of the cursing.
I mean, unless it was just a novelty day or something.
But people will leave because of the cursing.
So here's a good marketing tip.
Nobody comes for the cursing, but they might leave because of it.
And it's the same with sexual content.
People don't really come because you might say something naughty, but they might leave because of it.
They might not tweet it because of that.
Yeah, and I also believe that stand-up comedians who curse too much are lazy.
Do you believe that?
That stand-up comedians who curse too much are just lazy or not funny.
They just can't write well.
And the ones who don't need it, you know, the Seinfelds, etc., they're operating at a whole different level.
Yeah. Yeah. And the reason that I slide into it, I feel, so this is my self-criticism, it feels lazy when I do it, because I know I can get a reaction from it, right? You can always get some kind of juice flowing into your audience if you swear.
So it's a little too easy, because everybody can do it, right?
Right? And if you're going to create an entertainment product, as this is, you sort of have an obligation to try to do some things that are, you know, a little different than what everybody else is doing.
So if you're just doing the obvious that anybody in the audience could have done, swear at stuff, what have you added, really?
Nothing. Yeah, don't use common phrases in writing.
Same thing, exactly. Yeah, there are times when it will be necessary, right?
There will be times when it's necessary.
But as a normal thing, nah.
I don't think so. All right, that's all for today.
