Episode 1588 Scott Adams: Today I Will Teach you a Persuasion Trick So Powerful This Video Will Probably Be Banned
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trim President Trump?
Whiteboard: Hypnosis Trick
CNN brainwashing technique
Fentanyl, a weapon of mass destruction
COVID, weaponized or westernized?
75% say voter ID is a reasonable measure
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Good morning everybody and welcome to the best thing that's ever happened to you and it's getting better as you sit here.
Yeah, I know. It's already peaking.
And getting better?
Wow! That's how good it's going to be.
Do you want to take it up a level? Today is maybe the best thing you've ever seen in your life.
Could change your entire worlds.
That's not even an exaggeration.
It might for some of you.
But before we get to that...
The simultaneous sip.
That's right! It starts on a high point, and it's just going to keep going all the way.
Watch this. But first, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, a stein, a canty jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid I like, coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
The dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go! Raging antibodies.
Raging. They're raging against the machine and against the COVID and everything else.
Well, is there anybody here who would like to see me change my opinion about vaccinations?
Would that be popular?
Anybody? Well, we'll get to that.
But first, CNN's banner today, they've got a big red banner to tell you the important things about the news.
Here are the important things.
And this is an exact quote from CNN's banner of the important things you need to know.
COVID-19 hospitalizations are climbing nationwide.
Number two, Trump may take his January 6th committee fight to the Supreme Court.
And number three, there's a cream cheese shortage.
What? I'm sitting on a fresh batch of bagels, and I'm only about half cheesed.
Um... I could circle back to this COVID thing and the January 6th thing, but really?
If I have to go a week without cream cheese, well, I'm moving to another country.
That's all there is to it.
Has anybody tried to watch the...
The Discovery Star Trek series?
It's in the third year or fourth year?
I can't remember. Ah, don't.
Do not watch it.
It started out pretty well, and I actually recommended it.
I think the second season it got pretty good.
But, oh my God, they've just destroyed it.
Of course, art is subjective, right?
So I'm certainly open to the possibility that somebody is watching this and just loving it.
But here's what happened.
They've decided to flip the switch on the traditional, you know, original Star Trek, which was mostly a bunch of white people, but we threw in, you know, Sulu and...
Who was the woman who played the communications officer?
Uhura. So even the first Star Trek, the original, It was more woke than television in general, because it was actually sort of a big deal to have a main character who was a black woman back in those primitive days.
But mostly it was a bunch of white people running around doing sci-fi.
But what Discovery's done is completely flipped it, and essentially every character has something going on.
And when I say going on, they're either a minority or they're LGBTQ or they're a woman or something.
So I don't know that they have too many straight males in it at all.
A few. But they don't have big, big roles.
Now, let me be clear.
I like entertainment should reflect the real world and the customers who are consuming it.
So there's nothing wrong with the impulse.
Just to be clear, I'm completely in favor of the impulse behind it, which is bring everybody in.
Make sure you have entertainment that appeals to as many people as possible.
That's a good thing. However...
As a writer, and someone who has written for television especially, I can tell you this.
As soon as you put that kind of a constraint on your writing, it takes a lot of flexibility away.
So if you make your show about that and then it has to be about that, it's hard for it to be about anything else.
So the problem is it just constrains the universe of things they can do and people they can hire and That kind of stuff.
So it looks like a disaster, even though it's well-intentioned.
It's actually well made, though.
The primary actress, a black woman whose name I wish I remembered, but I don't, is really, really good.
Like, just as a professional actress, just a great on-screen presence.
But I think it's the other stuff.
It's the writing that I think bogged it down.
The performers are actually quite good.
And the production is really good.
But I think the writing just fell apart.
Anyway, I saw a picture of Trump at the golf course.
It looked like a recent picture.
Something in the last few weeks.
And he looks like he's definitely changed his diet.
Has anybody seen a recent picture of him not wearing a jacket?
So you can see him, say, in his golf clothes.
He looks like he's lost...
I don't know, I'd hate to guess, but 60 pounds?
It looks pretty substantial.
Now, it could be that he's trying to get down to a fighting weight to compete, or it could be telling us he's not going to run.
Because one of the things that happens when you lose weight at that age, and I'm, you know, exhibit A, is it makes you look older.
If your face is the thing that's usually what people see, as you're seeing mine right now, if I gained about seven pounds...
These lines just go away.
They disappear. It's almost like a facelift.
See these lines? Seven pounds, and it goes like that.
It just disappears. So if I wanted to be a little bit heavier than I would like to be, so I wouldn't look as good with my shirt off, I could look way better in the face.
And if I were a politician, that would be a tough trade-off.
Because it will make him look older, and that's going to be That's going to be a major factor for anybody's vote decision, or should be.
Maybe it hasn't been, but it should be.
All right, and I love the fact that he's sending the right message, especially during COVID, right?
Because we know weight is a big factor, health is a big factor.
So I think I give Trump kudos for his role-modeling decision, even if it was just for his personal reasons, probably was.
But it's a good role model.
And yes, let me extend that to Joe Biden, who has had a lifetime of commitment to fitness.
Can we say that?
I know you're not all Biden fans, but can we give him that?
I would say Joe Biden has been one of the best examples of lifelong commitment to fitness.
So we can give him that.
Whereas Obama was, at least he liked to exercise, and he was thin, but he smoked.
So, I mean, that's just the worst possible thing you could do as a president.
Would you like to talk about some mysteries of cognitive behavior?
Yes, you would. So here's a mystery that I've been trying to figure out, and I think I've figured it out.
And I want to run this by you, and we're going to go to the whiteboard for this.
I'll give you your advanced hypnosis lesson in a bit.
But I've been trying to figure out why there are people who are really paying attention to all things coronavirus were seeing completely different studies and facts than I was.
And at first I thought, oh, I get it.
This is because people are looking at different things.
But now I don't think so.
I have a new hypothesis, which I feel pretty strongly about, about why people are seeing completely different facts about coronavirus.
I'll give you some examples. And before you take this as an insult, let me clarify.
When I say analytical skills, or analytic skills, I'm not talking about something you're born with.
I'm not talking about your IQ. And the only claim I'm going to make is that it's a learnable, teachable skill.
If you have gone through years of experience on decision-making and analytics, you're probably good at it.
If you've never had that kind of background, but you're also very smart, you're very worldly, you spend a lot of time in the world, you could imagine that you have those skills and not even be close.
So there is... I would say maybe 90% of the population believes they have something closer to high analytical skills while, in fact, they have low analytical skills and has nothing to do with their genes, right?
You're not born that way.
You're simply not born that way.
It's just a learned skill that not everybody knows is learned.
And so, when I look at certain facts, such as vaccines reduce the spread and reduce deaths, there are other people who say, wait a minute, no, I'm looking at different data than you are.
All the data I look at says the opposite.
It says none of that's happening.
But why is it that I was only seeing my data?
Was it confirmation bias?
Because that's what I thought it was.
Or maybe just different channels of news or something.
But now I've decided that it's probably more this.
Because I think everybody's seeing the same stuff.
At least I'm seeing the same stuff on both sides now.
And when I see the stuff that tells me the vaccines don't help you...
Now, we're not talking about side effects now.
Not talking about side effects.
That's a separate conversation.
And I have definitely a different view on vaccinations.
So if you want to wait around to see that my opinion on vaccinations has changed, some of you are going to enjoy that.
But just hold that thought.
All I'm trying to do here is give you a different framework for why we're seeing different realities.
My belief is that we're blind to the other.
Meaning that I did actually see all the things that the people were saying were proof that vaccines don't work.
I saw all of them.
But if you're good at analytical stuff, you probably discounted them to the point of being blind to them, like literally forgetting them as soon as you saw them.
For example, if somebody sends me an anecdote of some specific thing that happened, if you are a high analytic person, you say, well, that means nothing.
If you're low analytical, you haven't been trained, you'd say, well, okay, I get that one story doesn't mean anything.
But I'm seeing a lot.
I'm seeing dozens.
I'm seeing hundreds of stories.
In fact, the VAERS database has tens of thousands.
So we're not talking about an anecdote anymore, are we?
Say the people who are not especially good at analytics.
But the people who are especially good at analytics would say this.
Wait a minute. The way the reporting is that the VAERS database is more danger than we've ever seen, right?
I think you'd all agree with that.
Bigger numbers than we've seen for other vaccinations.
On top of that, the people in journalism are telling us, and a lot of medical professionals too, a lot of experts are saying it is likely grossly under-reported Underreported.
So as big as those side effects are that are being reported now, it could be five times that size, say the experts, who are generally not trained in analytics.
They're experts in their field.
Medicine, virology.
But are they experts at analyzing stuff?
Maybe not. If you were an expert at analyzing something, you would say something more like this.
So what if the VAERS database is ten times as big as what you'd expect?
Because you haven't told me how much benefit there is.
Because if you don't tell me how much benefit there is, I don't know if that ten times danger thing is actually meaningful.
What if it went from one person in the world to ten people in the whole world?
It would still be nothing relative to the whole population, but it would be ten times more.
So don't tell me that there is a raw number more if you're leaving out the percentages and the appropriate comparison.
Is the appropriate comparison to other vaccinations?
Nope. That's not the appropriate comparison.
That's what you compare to if you're not good at analyzing.
If you're good at analyzing, you say, wait a minute, this is a pandemic.
You don't make your risk management decisions the same as business as normal.
A whole different standard.
So... People are seeing completely different things as facts because if you have no training in analytics, you think you're seeing things that mean something.
If you're highly trained in analytics, you know that you're not.
Does that mean that the people who are high in analytics are right?
In the comments...
I'm going to make you say it out loud so I don't have to say it.
In the comments... Did I just tell you that the people who are good at analytics are getting all the right answers?
Did I just say that?
Did you hear that?
Nope. Nothing like that.
Nothing like that. See, this is another way that I confuse people.
Because I make an argument, which I think is useful, and then it's easy to jump to the conclusion that I've taken it somewhere I didn't.
This is all I'm saying.
If I want to tell you who's right, that would be a different conversation.
But it has nothing to do with the fact that some people are trained and some are not.
Let me give you the perfect example.
I consider myself highly trained in analytics.
I've got a degree in economics.
I've got an MBA. Many years of decision-making with lack of data and complex situations over long periods of time.
Which I do in my Dilbert job as well as years of corporate experience.
Now, does all of that analytical ability make me right?
Sometimes. But even I don't know when I'm wrong, right?
So don't go overboard that somebody's got the right training that's always right.
Because here's the problem.
I was going into this whole pandemic situation saying, all right, let's look at all the information and discount the bad stuff and, you know, prioritize the good stuff.
And I was really looking at it like this big complicated thing that needed to be understood as a whole.
Other people who may not have had the experience of analytics said this.
Wait a minute. It's from the government?
Well, that's not good.
Wait a minute. It's from big pharma?
They're going to say anything for money.
Okay, who's right?
The really, really smart people who are good at analytics, looking at all the data, looking at all the randomized controlled trials, Looking at all the experience, everything that CNN says, everything on Fox News, looking at both sides, you're digging down, you're doing your own research.
Damn it. You're doing your own research, and you're good at it.
You're good at it.
So you get the right answer, right?
I don't know. Peace me.
I guess we'll all find out.
You're gone. You're gone.
Sorry, wander this world.
There's something that I can't stand, and it's you.
Hide this user.
Goodbye. All right.
Now, I'm not saying anything that I haven't said before in different ways.
But I am saying it more forcefully because I could tell that the message wasn't getting through and I was confusing people, etc.
How pissed off am I going to be if it turns out that the people who didn't do any analysis at all and just said, it's from the government?
It's from Pfizer? They'll sell you anything for money.
What if it turns out they're just totally right?
Because I'm not going to rule that out.
Now, I don't think it's right.
And I'll tell you some, you know, I'll give you my reasons.
But I will tell you that my thinking has evolved as information has changed.
Now, if you ask me which way has the information changed, I would say it is closer to the people who didn't do any analysis at all and just said, it's from the government, it's from Big Pharma.
I think we're done here. Now, by the way, This is sort of a related aside.
I've told you before that while my personal feelings are left of Bernie in terms of goals, he has impractical ways to get there.
And I think Republicans are more practical.
So I like that part about him.
But the other thing I like about sort of the conservative mindset is it really does get to the point faster.
It's like, came from the government?
Nope. Nope. Want to raise my taxes?
No thank you. Want to limit my freedom?
We're done here. And the thing that's agonizingly annoying about that is how often it's right.
It just annoys the piss out of me.
When that point of view just continually hits a high percentage of rightness.
Not all the time.
I mean, I think it can create a blind spot.
It can definitely create a blind spot.
And so maybe 80% you get the right answer.
But that 20% is pretty dangerous.
So don't get too cocky.
Don't get cocky.
Don't get cocky if you write 80% of the time.
That's not good enough.
All right, so this is my opinion about why people are seeing different things.
Again, it does not mean that I'm right and you're wrong.
All right. We're going to get back to some related stuff that's a lot of fun here in a minute.
How would you like a...
Persuasion lesson so powerful that I think it will get this video banned.
Are you ready for that?
Now, here's some context.
The people on Locals are getting a larger set of instructions that they will assemble on their own to pair with what I'm going to teach you now.
Short of that context, you won't be able to use this for much, but you're going to find it very interesting, and it is useful.
It just won't be useful for maybe something specific.
But this is big, and when you ask me, let me tell you in advance, when you tell me where's the book where I can learn more, it doesn't exist.
Whereas the video where I can learn more doesn't exist.
You can only learn this from another hypnotist who tells you in person.
There's something so powerful that they shouldn't be told to the public.
But I'm going to take a chance to see what happens.
I guess I felt...
I think I woke up wanting to cause trouble today.
All right. Now, like I said, this is part of a larger body of persuasion.
So if you hadn't done some priming things, such as making yourself credible, creating the assumption that you can do what you say, things like that.
If you haven't primed things, you haven't selected the right person, there's a whole bunch of other stuff you have to do.
But this is a key concept, and you won't see this anywhere else.
Suppose you wanted to get control of somebody's body so that you could suggest something and they would actually feel it.
This is how you do it.
And again, you'll never see this written down.
You start with a suggestion.
And I won't be hypnotizing you, but some of you are going to feel this, okay?
So there's no intention to hypnotize anybody while you're here.
But because there are so many of you, and we're all different, some of you might actually feel this.
If you're uncomfortable with that, you should skip this part, okay?
So that's your full warning, is that you might actually feel something in your body.
It's not intentional, okay?
But somebody out there would feel it.
If you don't like that, you should check out now.
All right. Here's the part nobody teaches you.
I call it the magic trick.
That's just my own word for it.
It's not really magic. But if you make a suggestion about somebody's smaller muscle groups, smaller muscle groups, they're going to say to themselves, is that really happening?
And you're going to give them some doubt.
Maybe yes. So, for example, a hypnotist might say to you, you're going to start blinking more rapidly than normal.
Not much, just a little bit.
And you might not even notice it at first.
But as you start to blink more rapidly over time, you will notice it.
Now, that's the magic trick.
Because if you talk about somebody blinking or yawning, or anything that gets in their mind, there are some things that happen almost automatically.
Right? If I told you, don't think of an elephant, you're going to think of an elephant.
It's just an automatic response.
If you tell somebody to think about their blinking or their, I don't know, that they need to swallow, these are things you are going to do anyway.
Right? You were going to do it anyway.
So that's the trick.
I'm going to suggest that something's going to happen that was going to happen anyway.
You were going to blink.
But do you know if you're blinking 10% faster than you used to be?
Could you tell? Because you weren't really tracking it before, right?
So if I tell you that I notice that you're blinking 10% faster, are you going to believe me?
Probably not. Does it matter?
Not yet. Does it matter?
I'm only trying to get you to...
Maybe. Maybe.
Maybe it is. Now you can do this with any of your minor muscles.
I could tell you that your hand at rest is going to feel an energy and it's going to go to the smallest part of your hand first.
Probably your pinky. About 20% of the people who hear that sentence will feel a twitch in their pinky.
That's roughly how many people are that susceptible to that level of suggestion.
If you're not one of them, and you're in the other 80%, I'm going to tell you that I thought I saw it move.
Looks like it's starting to move.
It's very slight. You might not even feel it yourself.
But as it moves, next part of the trick, I'm going to make you think past the sale.
I'm going to talk about what it feels like after it moves.
I'm not going to deal with the fact that it might not move.
Never even a possibility.
I'll just tell you what's going to happen after it moves slightly.
After it moves slightly, you might feel it move a little bit more.
And a little bit more.
And you build on it.
So whatever you can get them to think is happening maybe, you can nudge them into thinking probably, and then you can nudge them further into making it actually happen.
So that's when confirmation bias kicks in and it gets stronger as you, the persuader, continue to call it out.
There it is. There you are.
You are blinking more heavily than the last time.
I can see your pinky is starting to twitch.
Now it's twitching more. That twitching might spread to your other fingers.
Now, none of this works.
Unless you've established some kind of trust, which is a separate lesson.
So just know that if the person you're working with doesn't trust you, none of this is going to happen.
Right? All the walls will be up.
So it's somebody who wants to experience this, generally speaking, or at least doesn't have a specific limitation to it, doesn't have an objection to it.
Once you have gotten somebody into confirmation bias that the thing you're saying is causing their body to move, It will.
And you have unlocked their brain.
And the things you say will go directly into their body and start expressing themselves.
Now, if you've never seen this, and if you haven't been a hypnotist, you probably haven't, you don't really believe it.
But you don't need to be under hypnosis for any of this to work.
You can get there, With other things.
It doesn't necessarily have to be blinking or pinkies, just any minor muscle, any physical sensation, anything that you want to start small and build on.
But I would also say you could generalize this concept to persuasion in general.
Take this and generalize it to non-physical things, just changing somebody's mind, let's say.
You could start with a suggestion.
You could give somebody anecdotes.
Give them anecdotes that make them say, well, I'm not really convinced by an anecdote, but maybe.
Maybe. So you can move from a suggestion to a maybe just with some anecdotes.
There are always some anecdotes for everything.
Then you call it out.
You say, there it is, there it is, there it is again.
You see it, I see it, everybody sees it.
Oh my God, there's three of them.
Look at that database.
Look at that database. Next thing you know, if they trust you, again, that's where the trust comes in.
If they think you're on their side, and it helps to be on their side, confirmation bias kicks in, and you have unlocked their brain.
And you can do anything with it, if you know how.
Now, when I tell you that this might be banned on YouTube, that's actually serious.
I don't know that for sure, but I've seen some things to suggest that the deep, let's say, hypnosis techniques are being banned on social media.
I don't know it, but it looks that way.
And I do have some direct belief in that, some direct evidence of that, which I won't tell you about.
All right. I have a new mascot called Anomaly on Twitter.
He's silly and entertaining and funny, and he talks about me a lot, and so I've deemed him my mascot.
And if you see him, thank him for all he does for me, because I find him very entertaining and colorful.
Jeff Pilkington tweeted today, showing side-by-side images of the top stories on CNN and Fox News, and both of them are disgusting.
They're disgusting in their propaganda, let's say, overtness.
So over on CNN, it's a COVID death scare that's just so blatantly propaganda-ish.
I'll talk about it in a minute. And then you look at Fox News, and it's all about Jussie Smollett and race hoaxes.
So those are the two things that those networks decided your brain needs to spend more time on.
Of course, the Jussie Smollett trial and even the conclusion were sort of semi-ignored by news on the left.
So there are a lot of people who just won't even know what the result was.
But on the right, it's just wall-to-wall coverage.
And likewise, on the right, there's less COVID, bad news, and on the left, there's plenty of it.
And so I was asking, say, what would happen to your brain...
If you only consumed propaganda from one side, it doesn't matter which side, but if you're only consuming it from one side, what's that do to your brain?
Because here's what I think it's doing.
And I tweeted this.
I said, if something happened to your brain that removed a critical function, you'd call that brain damage.
But the fake news has removed your ability to effectively cope with reality, and we call that being informed.
It's actually brain damage.
You are being essentially brainwashed into being blind to context.
Imagine if you got hit in the head with a rock and you could understand everything that's happening at the moment, but you couldn't see any context anymore.
You didn't know how everything you're doing fit into the bigger picture.
That's what the fake news is doing to us.
They're making you blind to context, just like you've been hit in the head with a rock.
Your brain is actually damaged.
It doesn't do what brains are supposed to do, which is automatically look for context.
Pretty much automatically, right?
It takes away your pattern recognition because it gives you a fake pattern.
Your normal ability to recognize patterns is being short-circuited by somebody feeding you a pattern that's not going to happen on its own.
That's brain damage.
If you want to give your brain a little checkup, there's an app called Ground App.
So on Twitter you can find it, at ground underscore app.
And you can just run your Twitter name through it, and it will tell you if you're consuming too much on one side, I think.
And it will also tell you, you know, which news is covering which stories.
So that will help you a little bit with your brain damage.
Speaking of CNN and their...
Rainwashing about the COVID stuff.
There's a story there by Miguel Marquez and Holly Ann on CNN. And I can't tell if it's an opinion piece or news.
Because if you do a news piece and all it is is an anecdote of one situation, is that news?
Because it's out of context, right?
Is that news or is that persuasion?
Is that opinion? Right?
I mean, I look at this and I don't even know if it's supposed to be news.
We're so far away from having honest news that when I look at it, I go, I'm not even sure what the intention was.
Was the intention to be news?
Anyway, the story is about this Michigan hospital.
And I know your opinions, but let me get to the part where you're going to like, okay?
We'll start with the part you don't like.
This is what one Michigan hospital says.
Since January...
This is a nurse there, I think.
We've had about 289 deaths.
And she says 75% are unvaccinated.
And the very few vaccinated people were people who didn't get the booster.
They were more than six months past.
So she said out of 289 COVID deaths, they've not had one person who had the booster shot...
Who died? So that's all you need to know, right?
Everything you need to know. Are we satisfied?
All the context is there.
We're good to go.
All right.
There are lots of problems with this.
We'll get to them.
Then she goes on.
We're seeing a lot of younger people.
Oh, here we go. Here we go.
And I think that is a bit challenging, said Selden, a 20-year nursing veteran.
She recalls helping the family of a young adult to say goodbye to their loved one.
Quote, it was an awful night, she said.
That was one of the days I went home and just cried.
What is left out of the story?
All right, let's say the story is all true.
What's left out? Here's what's left out of the story about the young person who died.
Their weight. Their weight.
That really, really matters.
I'm sorry. I'm kind of done ignoring that.
Not that I ever did ignore it.
But don't take anything else that they say as honest.
If you leave out the weight of the young person that she saw die...
Now, it could have been not overweight.
Which I would like to know, because that would have actually helped their side of the story.
But if it was somebody who was obese, it's important.
It's no less a tragedy, right?
We're not going to dunk on somebody who died.
But it's important, and it's left out, because it doesn't kind of fit the narrative, right?
Here's what's also not mentioned, before you say it to me a hundred times.
How many people does she know of that is strongly suspected, because it's hard to know, how many people in the last year does she know of that they suspect died from the vaccination itself?
What do you think?
Because wouldn't this story be a lot better for their side?
Let's say they wanted to promote this point of view that you should get vaccinated, which is apparently what this story is about.
Trying to convince you to get vaccinated.
How do you write this story honestly and never talk about whether it's zero?
Because it could be zero.
I wouldn't be surprised.
Would you be surprised if it was zero?
That not a single death was attributed to the vaccination in this one hospital?
It could be zero. In one hospital, because remember, there's only 289 people who died of COVID. That's not really a lot.
Even if you consider that the vaccinations were seriously dangerous compared to any other vaccination in the past, I don't know that you'd see even one on a 289.
What does your sort of statistical common sense tell you?
Even if a lot of people were dying from COVID shots, even if that were true, which I don't have evidence of that, but even if that were true, would you expect that you would have seen one out of 289 people?
In the context of 289 people dying, that gives you a sizing of the hospital volume, I guess.
That's all it does. Yeah, it should be about zero.
But shouldn't they mention that?
Because I feel like maybe it wasn't zero because it was unmentioned.
Because how much more powerful would that make their case?
Imagine if you saw this story and then she said, boom, drop the mic, zero people with vaccination problems.
Well, maybe it's because it's not true.
Maybe they've had multiple that they suspect.
What do you think? I feel like the most important part of the story was left out.
Which is, we know the benefits, you just told us.
Tell us about the costs.
Tell us about the costs.
And Shecky's just saying none of it happened.
Maybe the whole story's bullshit.
Can't rule that out either.
Alright, well, that's clearly a bunch of fake news.
But here's a question I have for you.
A lot of...
I see a lot of people on social media who say the virus is not killing anyone.
It's like a mass hysteria.
That people are just dying of other causes and it's being attributed to the virus.
And then also people telling me that there are so many people getting hurt by the jab that any medical professional working in a hospital would see it by now.
So why aren't we hearing about it?
Why is it that, as far as I know, do me a fact check on this.
Do me a fact check.
As far as I can tell, 100% of the people who actually work on the front line think that coronavirus is real and terrible and that we're not hearing anything about vaccinations killing people.
So the people who are closest to reality, the frontline medical people, are absolutely certain that COVID is a horrible thing.
Pretty much all of them, right?
Have you seen an exception?
So that doesn't mean that tells you for sure, but I wouldn't ignore that, the people who are closest to it.
All right, here are some things that are changing my thinking on boosters.
Would you like me to tell you that I'm less inclined to get a booster?
Here's my thinking. Now, early in the pandemic, my thinking was, the last thing I'm going to do is be first in line for a vaccination.
That's been only tested as much as it's been tested.
So I told you this up front.
That I'm going to hide, you know, socially distance, for at least six months, and if people are not dropping like flies, then I will look at all my, you know, my comorbidities, because I have asthma, and I'm a certain age, right? So I looked at my age, I looked at my asthma, and medical science was saying, yeah, you're in the high-risk group.
I said to myself, but you know what else is high-risk?
The shot itself.
But... I don't know enough about either of those risks, right?
I don't really know my personal risks.
There's no way to know, really. And I don't know, really, if the shot is going to be bad for me, personally, or even bad for people, personally.
I don't know. So I had to guess.
And one of the factors was travel and access to things, and part of it was patriotic.
You know, I thought, well, if I can sacrifice my health, then it helps the country somehow.
Do my part, right? So there were a lot of considerations.
And so I thought to myself, two vaccinations, that's what they promised us.
Maybe this is all we need.
I signed up. All right?
Now, if you tell me I did the analysis wrong, I tell you, I just told you I guessed.
I just told you I guessed.
So if you tell me I'm wrong, don't tell me I'm stupid.
I just told you I guessed, because there is not the right data.
And if you think you're 100% certain in your decision, well, I think that's hard to justify.
But you may have guessed right.
I mean, if your guess was purely based on follow the money, government bad, big firma bad, you know, it's all bad, you might be right.
I swear to God, I guessed.
Because there's no other way to do it, right?
I didn't have another option.
But things have changed.
Here are the things we've learned.
Number one, New York Times had this story.
Fat cells apparently store the COVID and make it worse somehow.
So the more fat cells you have, the more danger.
So now we have really very confirming evidence as time goes by that if you're not overweight, you probably don't have much of a problem.
I'm not overweight. So does that change my calculation?
Yes. Yes.
That's new information.
We suspected that weight had a big difference, but now I'd say it's confirmed.
So that's different. We know vitamin D has a big correlation.
I do everything I can to keep my vitamin D up.
It's probably better than most.
Age is still a factor, but I'm sort of on the cusp age-wise.
We're now learning that asthma might not be bad for you.
In fact, it might be good in terms of protecting you.
So the unambiguous information that asthma was bad for your risk has reversed.
At least we're not sure, but some say it might be good, some say it might be bad.
So that's a complete new information for me, and one of the biggest variables was my comorbidity, which might not even be a factor.
And then today I read, this is a New Zealand thing, they're claiming that a vegetarian diet makes you 75% less odds of getting the coronavirus.
75%? I doubt that.
But I'm a pescatarian, mostly a vegetarian, so I figure, well, that's to my benefit, too.
Then the other thing that's changed is the therapeutics, obviously.
When I got the vaccination, the therapeutics were just sort of maybe starting to come online.
But I'd say in the next six months, we're going to have some really good shit and stuff you haven't even heard about yet.
I think there's probably some stuff coming...
It'll just be amazing.
And maybe in the next year.
So, put it all together.
I would say that I was leaning 80-20 toward the booster shot.
Maybe a month ago.
I probably was 80-20.
Based on new information.
New information.
I'm going to revise that to...
Today, I would be 60% against.
40% for.
Now, I think that it's likely to change before I have to make any final decisions.
And maybe if there's some mandates that just piss me off and I just want to get past them, I might do something.
But when you see that you've got better therapeutics, you've got sketchy behavior by the vaccine companies, you know, 75 years before we see their numbers...
Apparently, at least suggestions that they have not been forthcoming.
A lot of stuff. Follow the money, obviously.
So you've got that going on.
You've got...
Anyway.
Oh, yeah. And then fast development.
And then the fact that they overpromised.
As soon as you start hearing that the booster is not the only booster, that's where you start to get, you know...
Way beyond my credibility level at that point.
All right, so that's where I'm at.
But I could change that decision if data changes, or even if it doesn't, really.
All right, Trump was really mad at Benjamin Netanyahu.
I saw it at Axios report that he was mad because Netanyahu congratulated Biden earlier than a lot of countries.
And so Trump said of the former prime minister, F him.
But he used the actual word.
He says he likes him personally, but he hates disloyalty.
That's one of Trump's strengths, I think.
And I've told you this before.
He punishes the disloyal Pretty much immediately.
And he praises the loyal and makes the biggest difference between being loyal and disloyal to him.
It's a good technique. I've seen other people use it.
And I don't know why anybody doesn't use it.
You should have the biggest difference between making you happy and making you unhappy.
You want to increase that gap.
He does it really well. Meanwhile, there's another enormous capture of fentanyl coming across the border, which we know the precursors originate in China.
And it's part of a Chinese, obviously, ongoing operation to kill Americans by the tens of thousands per year.
But I realized recently, and I did a little research to confirm this, that China has used their weapon of mass destruction, fentanyl, And it's definitely a weapon of mass destruction the way they're using it.
I get that it has medical uses and they're valuable and you don't want to lose that.
But China does use it as a weapon of mass destruction.
And by my estimate, the total Americans killed is more than all the Japanese citizens killed in two nuclear bomb attacks Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.
If you added the only two nuclear attacks in the world, our biggest weapons of mass destruction uses, they're smaller, smaller than what we're already experiencing from just fentanyl from China.
And yes, it's all intentional.
And so here's the question that I've got now.
So here are the things we know about the coronavirus.
We know it affects fat people, and we know that the West, especially America, most adults are overweight.
China, not so much.
I googled it just to make sure I knew this, but sure enough, there's some science showing that green tea might be very good for keeping your health in the face of the coronavirus.
And you put that together with the fact that China had the best outcome of any of the countries, even though they birthed the virus...
The virus started in China, and they had the least problem with it.
And Asia in general didn't have any bad countries, did they?
Name an Asian country that really had a tough time with coronavirus.
You can't. Now, the question is, was this virus weaponized or...
Wait for it, wait for it.
I've got to prime you. Was the virus weaponized or westernized?
Because if it burrows into fat and green tea knocks it out...
I got questions.
I got questions.
You know what I mean? I got questions.
On a different topic, a Rasmussen poll asked, how important is it to prevent cheating in elections?
90% said that's very important, or somewhat important, to prevent cheating in elections.
So that's good. Almost everybody thinks that.
That's good. And then Rasmussen asked, is requiring voter ID a reasonable measure to protect the integrity of the elections?
Well, it turns out that whether you're white or black, the answer is about the same, according to the poll.
And altogether, all people voting as one in this great melting pot of a country, 75% of them say that requiring voter ID is a reasonable measure.
Huh. 75% think voter ID is a reasonable measure.
Subtract 75 from 100.
25% don't think requiring voter ID is reasonable.
It is reasonable. And then Rasmussen asked, did Joe Biden win the 2020 election fairly?
53% of the country said yes.
Obviously, it breaks down by political parties and stuff.
But 47% of the country said no or they're not sure.
Not sure is bad enough that I threw it in with no.
47%. 47% of the country isn't sure we even live in a country.
A republic with a democratic election process.
They're not even sure they live in a country that is what it advertises.
Are they wrong? I don't know.
How would we know?
Because the system is unauditable.
If you have this many people who aren't sure if they even voted...
I mean, I'm paraphrasing here.
That's not what they say. But you have to fix that.
You have to fix that.
Government... If Trump ran on that alone, it would be a landslide.
If he just went in and said, yeah, yeah, we'll talk about all the other stuff, you know how I feel about it, but we have to have elections that can be audited.
We're just going to fix that.
Just give me that. Just elect me for another term.
I'll fix your damn election system so they can be audited all the way through and instantly.
That's all I'm going to give you.
Everything else is going to come through the election system.
I will be the least monarch of anybody who ever was a leader.
Because I'm going to put you in power in a way you've never been in power before.
The power to know you actually fucking voted.
And it got counted.
If Trump gives me that, I'm all in.
I'm all in.
I don't think he will, by the way.
I think he'll just bitch about the last election and it won't be effective.
But if he gives me, I'm not going to talk about the past, let's talk about the future.
If he gives me that, all in.
All in. Because like I've said, I like presidents who fix a few big problems and then leave.
Because maybe the next president's better for whatever problems are left.
Here's a hypothesis I'm working on, that the younger you are, the fewer hoaxes you've seen.
Does that seem fair?
The younger you are, the fewer hoaxes you've seen.
And so what would be the natural impact of that?
You would be less...
less skeptical.
You'd be more gullible, right?
Not because you're dumb.
No. Not because you're uneducated.
Young people are actually more educated than their seniors.
So nothing wrong with you.
Just young. You should, theoretically, be more trusting of things just because you haven't seen as many tricks as people like me have seen.
So, how does that break down?
The people who are sure about the election being fair.
If you were between 18 and 39, so these are the youngest they were asked, 61% of the people said the election was fair.
You get a little older, 40 to 64, and only 53% thought it was fair.
So from that age group, it drops from 61% thought it was good to 53.
How about if you keep going?
65 and older, only 43% trusted the election.
Once you get to a certain age, your ability to trust the government just falls off a table.
Now, who's right?
I don't know. On any given issue, maybe the young people are more right.
Maybe the experienced people are more right.
You know, it depends on the issue.
But in general, if you're young, I would ask you to just consider that people who have been around longer have seen more bullshit than you have and probably can spot it faster.
Probably. Not all of us.
Like I said... It takes training.
If you don't have training, you're probably not going to be good at it.
But once you reach a certain age, you can sniff things out a little faster.
And maybe you're over-skeptical.
I mean, that could be a possibility, too.
But it's a big difference.
All right. That is the end of my prepared comments.
I think I delivered on the best live stream you've ever seen in your entire life.
I think that's just an easy claim.
Totally objectively true.
There's no subjectivity.
Oops, one more has to go.
Sorry I break kids' legs.
That comment gets you banned.
Scott finally wakes up.
He's waking up. Oh wait, maybe that's just being sarcastic.
Finally wakes up every morning?
I can't tell if you're actually saying that or if you're joking about other people saying it.
So I will spare you, because I'm not sure if that was the comment that I don't like.
Yeah, I might have been. Was it tingly?
Snap you out of your hypnosis?
I will do. The one thing you need to know is that you're always free to wake up from your own hypnosis.
It doesn't matter who hypnotizes you.
You have the power.
Are Fridays any big deal for you?
Do you care about weekends? Only as it affects other family members, which in turn affects me.
But I work every day, so there's no difference when I wake up.
So how do we do this persuasion, and why are you gays to Trump not using it to take over the world?
Well, Trump used it to take over the presidency.
And there's a pretty good chance he's going to do it a second time.
So I would say that people are using it.
You know, I've told you this before, but it's hard to describe.
My filter on the world is I see a war of wizards, basically.
The persuaders who know how to do it at a commercial, professional level...
And, you know, they're on different teams and they're working toward different topics and stuff.
But to me, it looks like a war of wizards that is completely invisible to the muggles.
More true Hollywood stories you want?
Oh, a predictions micro lesson.
All right, I'll do that. Over on Locals, I do micro-lessons, little two- to four-minute lessons.
I've got over 200 of them now, and each of them is designed to give you a life skill, like an actual, practical, real thing that makes a difference, but in two minutes.
So I was asked to do one on making predictions, which I can do.
All right. Don't agree we oldsters sense hoaxes more reliably.
Well... It's definitely true that seniors are conned more easily.
That's true. But when they're looking at politics, I think they see patterns better.
When they look at an individual con, like a con person tries to get some money from them, that might be the first time they've ever seen one.
So it's not like most people have a lifetime of experience with in-person cons.
But they've been watching the news for a long time.
How do we become a wizard?
You should Google the phrase persuasion reading list.
You'll see a bunch of books on persuasion.
But read Wimbigley, my book, to start.
Can you name drop a few of those wizards?
Oh, I can't.
I can't. Maybe I can think of a few.
I mean, obviously, Trump would be chief among them.
The University of Utah fusion scam.
Well, if all you do is say that every fusion breakthrough is fake, you so far would have been right 100% of the time.
So that's a good example of how a senior would be right all the time.
But here's the problem. I don't know if it'll be right in five years, because the fusion stuff finally looks real.
It's been reduced to an engineering problem, I'm told, which means it's solvable.
All right. I'm not up to date on Assange.
I want to catch up on that before I have an opinion, but I will talk about that.
Is Joe a wizard? No.
Obama was. Bill Clinton was.
Those are some of them. AOC, for sure.
But there are also persuaders behind the curtain that will remain behind the curtain.
