My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
AI is the future, so Biden is doing great?
President Trump's rally yesterday
Is NY COVID policy racist?
Questioning beliefs about George Soros
Binary Syndrome, the power of reframing
COVID anecdotal people vs science people
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
So if you're just joining me on YouTube, both of my iPad devices, which are new and have the new software, they're crashing.
When I try to use YouTube, and it's sort of a sudden problem that's across multiple devices.
And I don't know if it's organic.
So I was just trying to figure out, working with just the locals people, whether I'm being targeted or whether it's just the biggest coincidence in the world.
It might be. But how would you like to enjoy a little thing I call the simultaneous sip?
I'm pretty sure you would like to.
Right? You'd love to.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice of style, a canteen, a jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine the other day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Yeah. And it's going to happen now.
Go. Oh, yeah, that's good.
That will make everything except my technology work better.
All right, let me blow your mind.
Are you ready? Who wants their mind blown?
I've been forever curious why it's so difficult, given modern technology, to do easily a split screen with a guest.
Right? Now, you know that people do it all the time in recorded scenarios.
And you know that networks can do it.
So a big network can do a split screen with guests.
And that way you can have a pro and a con guest.
I'm starting to wonder, and put on your conspiracy hat, are you ready?
This is just pure conspiracy.
We all enjoy conspiracy theories, right?
Am I right that you regard them as entertaining?
Because I sure do.
Here's my conspiracy theory.
Why is it that there's not a popular, easy to use product for somebody like me to very quickly put two experts up to figure out what's true?
Do you think that's because we can't figure out how to do it live?
Now, you can do it recorded, but that's a big friction, and it takes away some of the fun.
But I'm starting to wonder, if we had that technology, it would be a complete transfer of power.
Would you watch the news...
If you could watch a high-end podcaster, it doesn't have to be me, right?
I'm not sure I'm a high-end podcaster.
I'm sort of a medium-sized podcaster.
But imagine, if you would, that...
You know, everything is about Joe Rogan because Trump's not making enough news lately.
Yeah, I know you say StreamYard, but it's not true.
I know you say that there are solutions, but they all have the same problem, which is a lag.
So there's either a lag, so you can't see the comments in real time.
So there's always some kind of a technology lag.
But StreamYard's getting there, maybe.
Can StreamYard you do two call-in guests at the same time?
That's what you need, at least.
All right, so I'm wondering what would happen when somebody like me could bring on two guests and actually give you an actual answer, what's true, or something close to it.
I think that would completely neuter the fake news, because you would have a complete total replacement for news.
Interesting, isn't it? I remember it was several years ago, I saw a quote by Mark Cuban.
And he said that if you wanted to know what the news is, he checks Twitter.
He doesn't check the news.
I mean, he wouldn't go necessarily to CNN.com or FoxNews.com.
He'd go to Twitter. And I would say the same, right?
Wouldn't you? Because Twitter will get all the network sources, but it also gets all the independents and all the individuals.
It's going to get the person with a phone who took a picture of the event.
So Twitter, in many ways, has already sort of siphoned off a lot of the energy from the major platforms.
But imagine if you could go to Twitter and easily call up Tim Poole, just to pick a name, And Tim Poole already had on the two experts who were giving you the real news about what's true and what isn't about the headline.
It'd be hard to watch the regular news, wouldn't it?
I mean, that little bit of technology that lets you do that quickly and painlessly, just the difference in reducing the friction of how hard it is to do that It's going to change the entire nature of power, basically.
The entire power structure of the world would be transformed by that technology.
And why don't we have it?
So that's the thing.
If you realize how powerful that would be, it would just completely transfer power to independent people who are giving you the news.
Maybe there's a reason we don't have it.
Just wondering. That's my conspiracy theory.
Alright, on February 1st, the American public will reclaim its sovereignty over its own health decisions.
We appreciate the government's assistance during the crisis.
The crisis is over.
Do you know what a fake because is?
A fake because is sort of something I came up with that's a name for something Childini talks about.
A fake because is when you give somebody a reason that isn't really a strong reason, but you didn't need one, because you're talking somebody into something that they wanted to get talked into.
So when somebody wants to be talked into something, they need any reason.
They don't need a good reason.
Just any reason. So that's the fake because.
It's the fake reason.
The government wants to get out of the business of regulating the public.
The government does not really want to be telling you to wear face masks.
The government doesn't want to mandate things.
It's a very uncomfortable thing for the government to do, because it will never win all your love doing that.
It's just not good politically.
So, in my opinion, the government wants to be talked out of it, but needs data, it needs a reason.
They can't just arbitrarily say, well, we were deeply involved, but now we're just going to walk away.
Can't do that, right?
But as the Omicron takes over and the vaccinations have reached a certain rate and the therapeutics are a certain place and the people who are going to die, unfortunately many of them did, we're at a whole new place.
And the government would like to get out of the business of regulating the specifics of your health decisions.
They really would.
Now I know you think to yourself, I don't know, I think it's a big plot to control your life.
Can you hold that bet?
I'll make a bet with you that the government wants to unwind this as fast as you do.
It just doesn't quite know how.
Well, it's not quite time yet, I suppose, would be another way to say it.
And I don't have any worry that you're going to be wearing masks forever, like none.
But if you do, let's just agree to check on it in a year.
If we're wearing masks in a year...
Number one, you won't have to worry about me because I'll put a bullet in my fucking head if that's the case.
But I don't think we're going to be wearing a mask in a year, so let's just hold that.
You know, if you think we are, I won't fight with you.
Let's just check it in a year, see who's right.
And so the fake because is this, that the public has powered up and gave it a deadline.
A deadline is a fake because.
But it's also not a crisis anymore.
So the moment we, the public, tell our government that the crisis is over, we appreciate the assistance.
You don't have to get into what they did wrong.
That's a separate conversation.
But there's no doubt that the government worked very hard.
I think, on behalf of the public.
Mostly, right?
So I do think you need to thank the government for its hard work.
Even with the flaws, nothing's perfect.
And I think we need to give them permission to end the crisis.
The government needs your permission, you the public, to define it as no longer a crisis.
So let's do that.
February 1st, the crisis is over, and that's the fake because.
The fake because doesn't replace the fact that there are lots of perfectly good reasons that have existed for a while now.
I'm just saying that sometimes you need a political reason.
And the fake because is the crisis is over.
So the more you can say that the crisis is over, the less reason there is for the government to have any control over your sovereignty.
So that's the argument. Give the government a reason.
Give them a reason and thank them.
Thank you, government.
Here's your reason to stop doing it.
I have a question for you.
You've all noticed that the troll activity kicked up around January 1st, I assume, because it's an election year, right?
And I can't tell what percentage of my critics are trolls, but the ones who are just shouting me down and trying to make my life harder appear to be paid.
But I can't confirm that.
We know that there are past reports of that exact thing, of people being paid to pester anybody who was pro-Trump, for example.
So I'm assuming that these are paid people, but I'm trying to figure out exactly how they imagine their mission.
If, in fact, that's what they are.
What would it look like?
Would the goal of the trolls be to simply siphon off my energy?
So I'm putting less energy into whatever they don't like?
Is that it? Are they trying to degrade my influence by changing my brand so people don't pay attention to me?
Is that what it is?
Uh... Are they trying to make me quit talking about politics?
Like, I wonder if they actually talk about it that way, or conceive of it in that specific way, or is it really just as general as, go pester those people?
I mean, what would the pestering, what would it do?
What's the mechanism of why that would be a good thing that you would pay for?
I mean, I think it probably does work.
And I think it's real. I just would love to hear an insider explain their thinking.
Have you ever heard it? Yeah.
You know, people have asked me why I respond to trolls.
Do you ever wonder about that? Because I probably respond to trolls maybe more than any public figure ever has responded to trolls.
Do you ever wonder about that?
You know, the people who are operating at, let's say, not a very deep level, imagine that I'm triggered and that, you know, I've lost it, etc.
Well, let's consider the recent example of my tirade against a troll named Shelley.
Not my ex-wife, even though that's her name, coincidentally.
Um... And Shelly said some, what I thought were some unkind things to me, and untrue, on YouTube.
And I said some things back to Shelly, and that became a meme, because apparently when you use the C word in the context of other F words, and you're talking directly to a woman, people think that that needs to be a meme.
So it's going all over the internet still.
And people say to me, well, I guess he's lost it.
I guess he's lost it.
But let me ask you this.
Do you really think I couldn't have controlled that?
Did anybody think that while it was happening, I didn't have the cognitive ability to predict how that would turn out and to make a conscious decision and a risk management decision about how that would go?
Of course I could control that.
I chose not to.
That was a conscious decision to release my control and just let the dog out.
But I let the dog out intentionally.
The dog didn't get out on its own, like it's not an independent dog.
When I let the dog out, I'm putting the key in the lock and turning it.
I know what I'm doing. Now, some would say it's a bad decision.
The people who say that was a bad decision, I'm going to make a bet.
I don't have data on this, but I'm going to make a bet.
Those who thought it was a very bad decision are probably not themselves famous.
And maybe you never will be.
Because famous people treat energy differently than the rest of you.
If you're an energy monster, as I like to use the phrase, you can create energy and then just surf it.
You know, you don't have to be pulled under the wave.
You can surf it. Now, it's dangerous, and if you don't know how to surf it, well, you're going to drown.
But if you do know how to surf it, and that's probably how you got famous in the first place, then energy means something different.
It's never an enemy.
Now, was the thing that people tried to get me banned for that I went hard, and especially used such a vulgar term, against a woman?
What do you think? Was that really the essence of why they decided that that particular tirade would be the one that they forwarded?
Because do you think they would have forwarded that if I'd said it to a man?
If exactly the same thing had happened, and I even used the same words, if it had been a man, would that have been a meme or something?
No, it wouldn't. So let me say this.
For all of you that were concerned that I used such a word when I spoke to a woman directly, at least in terms of the comments, I would say that you're a bunch of sexist troglodytes.
Because the way I treat a woman who comes at me first...
At least in the verbal sense, right?
We're not talking about in the physical world.
That's a different standard.
But in the exchange of ideas world, I'm not going to treat a woman differently because I'm not a sexist.
When it comes to opinions.
I'm a sexist when it comes to physical confrontation.
And I hope most of you are too.
Because there's a size difference.
There's a danger difference. That has to be recognized.
But when it's a battle of opinions, am I going to treat women like they're children?
Fuck no. No.
If you come at me, you're going to get exactly the same treatment.
Because... I have respect.
That's why. You know, I don't think you quite understand that when I went after Shelley, it's because I believed she could handle it.
It's not because I believed I would crush her because she was a woman.
No, I believe that just like every other man who comes after me on social media, they can dish it out, and in all likelihood, they can take it.
And in fact, I don't think anybody's really bothered when somebody who's a celebrity, or a minor celebrity in my case, I don't think anybody cares if a minor celebrity curses at them in public.
Do you? Don't you think it just was a funny story she told her family?
Before they disowned her?
I don't think that anything was bad happening on her end.
I was just getting out some...
Getting out some feelings and having fun with it.
So if any of you took any of that too seriously, maybe you shouldn't.
Maybe you shouldn't. But let me promise you that when it comes to the war of ideas and words, I'm going to treat women equally.
And I hope that that doesn't bother you.
Well, actually, I don't care if it bothers you.
More accurately, I don't care at all.
All right. I feel like this is too much about me.
Let's talk about something else.
I wanted to ask one of my smartest people I know who was a Biden supporter, and I wanted to say, how do you think it's going?
I wanted to pick somebody who is really good at arguing and thinking things through and seeing the big picture.
So yesterday, when Biden was at his lowest approval and it looked like the worst week ever, I thought, well, this would be a good time to revisit some of the people who were really happy that Biden got elected.
Just see if they had any second thoughts.
And so I thought I was going to be dunking pretty hard.
And I won't name names, but somebody, just somebody very smart.
And I asked how they thought it was going, and this person pointed out the following.
That the only thing that matters to the future of the world is AI, and Trump was bad on AI, and Biden's good at it, and all of the other stuff doesn't matter.
So let me say that again.
So the argument was, Biden's, you know, everything seems to be going wrong, you know, from the outside.
In his worst week...
And then the argument in support of him was that none of it matters compared to AI. I mean, it all matters, of course.
But compared to AI, it's not even in the ballpark of importance.
Because the entire future, especially competing with China, is going to be AI. And if you don't realize that, then you're arguing about all the small ball stuff, while the future of humanity is basically just AI. Right?
I'm... I'm extending the argument a little bit for a purpose.
But I heard that argument.
So that would be an argument if you looked at the only thing that was really, really important to the future.
Trump wasn't as good as Biden.
Biden's got some more funding, I guess, for that.
I will now judge that argument.
You ready? Here's my judgment on that argument.
Accepted. Argument accepted.
Now, I'll give you a little pushback, because not every argument is clean.
Number one, how does anybody know how the United States is doing in AI? That is unknowable.
How do you know how we're doing compared to China?
Totally unknowable.
Now, not just because the government would keep it a secret, obviously, but do you think you know what the AI startup that Elon Musk is involved with?
And I think Sam Altman might be in that as well.
Do you think you know what that's doing?
Of course you don't.
Do you think you know what that will do next month?
What is Elon Musk's AI going to be doing next month?
Absolutely no idea.
Do you think somebody in China is getting ready to dunk on whatever Elon Musk put together with the other investors?
By the way, these are the top smartest people in Silicon Valley and not in Silicon Valley.
We're talking about the smartest Americans putting together privately various AI enterprises.
Compared to the government of China investing like a mofo to really, you know, and stealing probably as much as I can, who's going to win?
And let me ask you this.
Would it have mattered much if Trump had funded it more?
You know, you do kind of think that the more money, the better, right?
I mean, that's a good...
Generally speaking, the more money, the better.
But I don't know if that matters for AI. Because do you know what can get all the money it wants?
A good AI startup.
Am I wrong? I'll take a fact check on that.
Because I made an assumption there that I don't think I have backing for.
But if anybody is in the...
Venture capital business, can you confirm that?
That if you had a promising AI startup, the only thing you wouldn't have to work out is getting funding.
So is money even a factor?
I mean, money is a factor in everything, but if you can always get all the money you want, almost as soon as you want, relatively speaking, Does it matter that China might have government-funded something and Biden did a better job of funding than Trump did?
I don't know. But...
So I think you can separate the two questions.
Question number one is, will the United States beat China in AI? Completely unknowable, but I would bet on the United States, with or without funding.
So I would have bet on the United States under Trump, If he had funded the same way.
And I would have bet the same under Biden.
Now, here's the second question.
Biden did his funding in a year that Trump wasn't president.
If Trump had won a second term, do you think that Trump's own experts would have convinced him to beef up the AI budget?
I don't know. Do you?
Maybe it would have happened at the same time.
Maybe... Maybe the reason the funding got approved under Biden is that it was time and that we had learned more about what China was doing and the argument just came together.
Do we imagine that Congress, the way it's constituted now, would have been, let's say, in favor of more AI funding this year, but would not have in the final year of Trump's administration?
I mean, did the nature of Congress change that much that...
That AI would have been more or less valuable within those just few years?
Don't know. Don't know.
But let's get back to the argument that AI is the big thing.
I will see your AI and I will raise you Space Force.
I would argue that Trump putting Space Force together Is going to be more important in the future than a lot of things.
Still less than AI. I'm going to give AI the edge as being more important than space.
But you also have to have space.
You also have to have it.
And Trump was strong on that.
Put together Space Force. So from a real-world perspective, it's hard to say that Trump did worse in AI because nobody knows how it's going to go or even if the funding would have made any difference.
But I will agree with the statement that Trump did less on AI and it was maybe our...
There's a real good argument.
It's the biggest priority. I don't see anything wrong with that argument.
So... Now, you may be saying, and I'm thinking this too, that if that's the argument you come back with, and by the way, there were a number of other arguments about Trump versus Biden that were, I would say, second-tier arguments that were fairly strong.
There are definitely some things that Trump was not excelling at, no doubt about that.
Anyway, very interesting. I thought it was a strong defense in a context in which I didn't think there would be any.
Although I don't know if it matters, really, funding-wise.
Trump gave a rally yesterday, and of course he goes right for the dangerous stuff, because that's what makes him Trump.
And he said this.
He said that white people are being discriminated against.
In the COVID sense, he goes, quote, if you're white, you don't get the vaccine, or if you're white, you don't get therapeutics in New York State.
If you're white, you go to the back of the line if you want help.
Here's my question.
Is that going to get fact-checked?
And if it is, what would that fact-check look like?
And shouldn't we insist that that be fact-checked?
Because do they only fact-check things that are untrue?
Because he's making quite a provocative claim.
I believe you fact-check things that are true as well as things that are untrue.
Should we not all of us push for a fact-check on this?
True or false? And by the way, I don't know if it's true.
Honestly, I've read the stories, and I'm still not sure it's true.
Because it has the feel of something that...
Shouldn't be true. Like, you know, it's a little too on the nose.
Like, for the, let's say, the conservative Republican point of view, it's a little too perfect.
Isn't it? Now, again, I read the stories and they look very convincing.
I guess if I had to bet my life on it, I'd bet they're true.
But you should be a little worried About the on-the-nose thing.
Be a little worried about that.
It's not a 100% predictor.
But it's weirdly on the nose.
So, I'd like to see it get fact-checked.
Now, it would be hilarious if it got fact-checked as true.
Because what do you do with that?
Yes, it's a fact that the government has been fact-checked and it is a racist government.
Wouldn't the fact-check say that?
If Trump is right.
And if Trump is not right, seriously, we need to know that, right?
Because I feel like he's probably right.
If I'm wrong about him being probably right about that, I would seriously want to know that before somebody else points it out, right?
I don't want to get in a Twitter battle with somebody who fact-checks me on that and I found out it was never real.
So fact-check it.
Let us know. Do we live in a racist country that has decided that the health of white people will be subordinate to the health of the others or not?
Let's find out. Do you know what way you could make sure that most people hated you?
One way would be stealing money.
You know, probably the two most hated people for, you know, reasons.
Lots of reasons. But is it a coincidence that the two biggest philanthropists are also the most hated?
Because I don't think it is.
I don't think it is.
And I've mentioned this before, but I have some new thinking about this.
The George Soros question...
To me, it fascinates me not on a political level, although that's interesting, but on the why-can't-I-figure-it-out level.
So there's a mystery that I'm just drawn to, which is, what the hell is going on with George Soros?
Now, I've heard all of your theories.
I've heard all of your theories, and we'll talk about them.
But here's what I'm going to add to the conversation that I haven't added before.
I'll use an analogy.
Recently I talked about how, if you're looking at the question of masks, which we're not going to talk about, just a quick reference, that I used an engineering perspective to look at them, and if you used a different perspective, such as a scientific one, you'd actually get a different answer.
And I thought that the engineering approach was probably the better one for masks, because they are kind of an engineering solution, even more than a A scientific solution.
And so the engineering solution gives you, you know, maybe a different answer than some other filter would.
But if you use the right filter, you're going to get the right answer.
And I would say that when you look at the George Soros mystery, what the hell is he up to and why?
Some of you don't think it's a mystery.
I get that. But I think the best filters for that are persuasion, And maybe economics.
Well, actually, I'll say two different ones.
I'm going to say economics would be a good filter for understanding Soros.
You know, how is he trying to profit, for example, right?
Because if you didn't understand economics, you wouldn't understand how he could, let's say, drive down a currency and still make money.
You wouldn't understand how disrupting things would give you an opportunity to invest.
So you should have a background in economics to have a pretty solid opinion on what George Soros may or may not be up to, which might be different from what he says he's up to.
The other filter is the Gelman filter.
Now, the Gelman filter says that if you're famous...
Or actually more generally, if you're an expert on something and you read about it in the news, you know that it's fake because you're an expert.
But the very next story you read is not in your expertise, and you think, oh, that one's probably true.
But the people in that expertise are saying, that's not true.
So you easily are confused in thinking that the news might be mostly true and just coincidentally wrong about your expertise.
But in fact, when you're famous...
As I am. You realize that the stories about yourself are almost never true.
Almost never. So what are the odds that I, as a famous person who has read many, many articles about myself and opinions about myself, and I can see that they're almost always wrong?
At least in some large...
And when they do the mind-reading thing, where they imagine whoever it is, imagines they know what I'm thinking, that's always wrong.
Like, always. So, should I believe that after seeing, I guess, maybe thousands and thousands of opinions about me, and seeing how wrong they are universally over a 30-year career, Why would I believe that anything said about anybody else famous was true?
Why would I believe that anything you said about...
Pick a famous person.
It doesn't even matter who.
Just any famous person.
Why would you believe it was true?
Especially the parts about what they're thinking.
Because that's the part they get wrong with me 100% of the time.
So if you're not famous, and you hear a bunch of things about a famous person, you probably think they're probably true, don't you?
Wouldn't your mind go there?
Probably true.
It's like if you get accused of a crime.
If you see somebody being tried for murder, do you think they're probably innocent?
No. No, they're charged with murder.
They're probably guilty.
So... So if you don't know economics and you're not famous, you're going to see Soros completely different than if you have those two perspectives.
And if you only had one but not the other, I think you'd still be confused about him.
Now here's the other part of the mystery.
Have you tried to do a search on George Soros to find out what his opinion is, especially about open borders?
Because that's the one people talk about the most.
Go to Google... Or even DuckDuckGo.
I don't think it matters.
And just try to search and find out what Soros thinks about open borders.
I couldn't find them.
I spent some time this morning looking for it.
Because I wanted to remind myself, what is it he thinks is a good idea?
You can't find it.
Now, did he do that?
Who did that?
Now, it could be because the search engines believe that the theories about why he's doing what he's doing aren't true.
So they may have just scrubbed them.
Or did he do it?
I don't know. But I know you can't find it.
So the only thing that I could find readily, I'm sure if I spent another hour and went page by page into the 25th page or something, DuckDuckDough gave me the same outcome.
Try it. See, that's the weird part is that if DuckDuckGo had given me different results...
Then I'd know what was happening.
But that's not what's happening.
It's just gone.
I don't know where it is.
If it was ever there, I don't know.
Maybe it was never there. That could be part of the mystery.
So I have this huge mystery about it.
And let me talk about the economics.
Here are some things I heard about him.
First of all, did you know he's giving away his fortune?
Right, so here's somebody who's giving away, and it's confirmed.
It is going away.
His fortune started, you know, big, and now it's smaller.
And he's very aggressively giving it away.
Look, here's a case of cognitive dissonance right here.
In all caps, Scott speaking out of ignorance, says the right-laying bandit.
Now, what is it when somebody yells at you in caps, And makes just sort of like a generic thing.
Now, isn't the entire thing that I'm talking about right now my ignorance?
Wasn't my point my ignorance?
I said, there's a mystery.
I don't understand.
I'm therefore ignorant.
So the troll comes in, and then he says, Scott is ignorant.
That's what I'm saying.
See, you're trolling.
You can't even troll properly.
You're so fucking dumb, you can't even troll properly.
And I've got to think that's got to be the lowest bar for talent there could ever be.
Here, troll, I'd like you to go in and insult this guy.
Just say whatever he says is true.
Just say the opposite.
Okay, I got it.
Whatever he says is true, I'll troll well by saying the opposite.
Got it, got it. And then I say, well, I don't understand what's going on here.
And the troll says, you don't understand what's going on here, in all caps.
And I wonder if there's any kind of a performance review for trolls.
Like, does he have a boss?
Is the boss going to look at that and say, God, there was one fucking rule.
You listen to what he says.
You disagree with it.
How many times do I have to tell you?
Don't agree with him.
Disagree with him. The all caps part is brilliant.
I like that you did that.
Because people really respect it when you say all caps.
And that will give great credibility to your opinion.
But please, go try again.
Say the opposite of what he's saying next time.
The opposite. That's how I imagine his performance review goes.
Anyway, if you knew that he were giving away his fortune, and that's confirmed, do you believe that Soros is in it to make money for himself?
Go. In the comments, knowing he's giving his money away, is he in it for the money?
Did I mention he's giving his money away?
And then the question is, is he in it to make money?
No. No.
And then I heard a comment that he gives his fortune away, in part, to reduce his tax burden.
No. No, you don't give money away to reduce your tax burden.
That's not a thing.
It's not a thing with Soros.
It's not a thing with you.
It's not a thing with me.
It's not a thing with anybody.
And it's never been a thing any time, at any place, in any dimension, in any part of the whole fucking world.
In no part of the world has anybody made a fucking penny because they gave money away, like charitably.
It's not a thing.
You reduce your taxes because you gave your fucking money away.
You didn't make money.
You didn't find a clever way to get in on the free money racket by giving your money away.
So can we at least agree to give up on Soros' trying to make money by giving his money away?
He's not.
Whatever he's doing, it's definitely not fucking that.
Now, we're not saying he's a good guy.
I'm not defending him.
I'm just saying, you can't fucking make money by giving all your money away.
You don't have to have a degree in economics to get that.
If you can find a way for me to make money by giving my money away, Please send me that link, because I'm going to be all over that fucking shit.
I'm going to be, like, giving my money away so fast.
Wow, this is great. Nobody ever told me I could make money by giving my money away to poor people.
Look at me making money.
Whoa! Whoa!
So let's abandon the economic argument.
Let's say that he just wants to do it because he has...
Would you buy that whatever reason he's doing it for is...
For his sense of what is right and wrong.
Could he give me that?
Could we all agree that whatever he's doing is his own personal sense of what's right and wrong?
Because I think he says that, right?
I mean, he says that directly.
He writes it.
It's exactly what he says.
And that seems pretty reasonably, yeah, posterity.
Might have to do with his ego, right?
Could we all get on the same page that it has something to do with ego, posterity, maybe even guilt?
Maybe even guilt because of the way he made his money, right?
Could be just guilt. Maybe he wants to revive his family name for the benefit of his children.
But do we agree that in his personal opinion, which might be wrong...
Could well be wrong, but would we agree that in his personal opinion he's trying to do something good for the world?
Would you give me that or no?
It's a hard question, isn't it?
I'm not saying he is doing something good for the world.
I'm saying that by process of elimination, since there's no economic benefit that anybody could reasonably imagine...
Well, you say influence, but remember, he's like 100 years old and he's going to be dead.
Do you think that he cares about his personal influence that's going to be like a few years left and then dead?
I mean, I think he's doing it for after he's gone, right?
Don't you think his incentive is more about after he's gone at this point?
Because he's like 100.
So... Then the question is, how does he describe what it is he's trying to do?
Now, if you look at his website, it all looks like awesome things to help poor people.
Right? I mean, that's his description of it.
That doesn't mean that's what's really happening.
And how do you eliminate this explanation?
So one explanation is that he's evil and he wants to control things.
And I get that. And I'm not eliminating that.
So if you're a Soros hater, I will give you this.
I don't know how to eliminate the possibility that it's all evil.
How would you ever do that?
I mean, I can't read his mind.
We can only look at what he does, right?
That's all we know. So I can't eliminate that.
But would you agree that another explanation could be this?
That he gives his money to a lot of organizations...
That don't do exactly everything he would want them to do.
Because that is sort of a problem with giving away a lot of money.
If you give away, let's say, a lot of money to one organization, you can pretty much control what they do.
But if you're giving away a lot of money through a lot of organizations and you're not controlling everything they do, aren't some of them going to be doing more than you want?
Now did you know that Soros is against the progressives?
I just read it in his own words.
He considers himself very far from the AOCs and the Bernies.
He doesn't like them at all.
He's a centrist. More of a centrist liberal by his own description.
You're laughing?
I'm saying what he says.
He actually complains about them going too far into the impractical.
So, what the hell does he want?
It looks like he's giving his money away because he wants to help poor people.
For whatever reasons, you know.
I mean, good ones probably.
But also good ones for his reputation, his legacy, his ego.
You know, as long as those are all compatible with...
Here's another one.
One of my critics, Old Fool Adams and Caps.
Does anybody have a...
Just throw in...
For those of the NPCs, I know a lot of NPCs are going to be coming here.
Good comments for the NPCs would be Soylent Green, 1984, Holocaust, and any of those comments will be perfectly acceptable from the Great Reset.
I don't know that... I haven't seen Soros connected with that.
Now, my understanding of the open borders is that he would like people to easily be able to cross borders for economic reasons.
Am I wrong about that?
Now, you're probably saying that he wants to do that to take down governments.
But when he says take down governments, do you know what he means in his own words?
Because he does say he wants to take down governments.
You knew that, right? But do you know what he means by that, by taking down the government?
He means giving the people more power.
He means giving the citizens more power over the government instead of the other way around.
Did you know that? Did you know that that's what he means when he says basically taking power from the governments and giving it to the people who live there?
No, I'm not mind-reading. I'm saying that's what he says.
And I'm not telling you it's true.
If I told you it's true, that would be mind-reading.
I'm just reporting what he says.
That would be his own description of what he's doing.
I'm reporting it as I just read it, like, just before I got on here.
Now, how many of you think that I'm defending Soros right now?
Does anybody have that impression?
I say yes. Yes.
Yes. Now, what does it mean to defend?
Because are you reading my mind?
Because why would I defend somebody who was doing something evil?
Well, did he get to me?
Did he bribe me or something?
Why would I do that?
So here's another...
When I see the cognitive dissonance tells, I'm going to call them out here.
In all capitals, Andrew Richards says, you are just lost.
The you and the lost are in caps.
Now, that's just pure cognitive dissonance.
Do you recognize them yet? This is the kind of comment you get, especially the caps, when somebody's finding that they're...
Their belief system is getting challenged.
Now, I'm not even telling you you're wrong.
Have I? Have I at any point said that Soros is not evil?
Because I don't know. How would I know?
I've heard a lot of things about him, and I can't find good information one way or the other.
But I'm telling you that if you haven't considered all the possible explanations of what you see, you could be blindsided.
Let me ask you this.
How many people have a background in economics and are also famous but disagree with me about Soros?
I'm not even sure I have an opinion on Soros.
I guess my opinion is I don't have an opinion, but I can't rule out the possibilities.
Yes, me. So here's a way to look at any differences we have, okay?
So I would assert that anybody who has a degree in economics and is also famous would have an opinion about Soros that's close to mine if they just sort of spend five minutes looking into what he does.
Now, does that mean I'm right?
No, the tough part is finding out which filter is the right one.
Because you know what's been the most accurate filter on reality?
In the last several years?
Let me see if you can get this.
What has been the most accurate filter on reality, or frame, if you will?
What's the best frame?
Not the simulation. That's, I mean, technically that is the right answer, but I'm going for something different here.
The most accurate predictive frame is that everybody's lying to you.
And all the data is wrong and the experts are wrong.
Now, I don't know.
I just gave you all my logic for why, you know, economics, blah, blah, and Gilman theory, blah, blah, blah.
But how well does all of my smartitude predict compared to, I don't know, I think everybody's lying.
They're both pretty good.
But I don't know if I've beat the average of just assume everybody's lying.
And if there's money involved, you know, doubly assume they're lying.
Am I wrong? See, that's the problem with the world today, is that if you just assumed everybody's lying all the time, you're going to be right at least 80% of the time.
And the 20% you think you're wrong, you were really right, but you didn't learn that they were lying to you.
So... Scott's been lying to his audience, he says.
Here's what the right lane bandit says in all caps.
So if you want to see some more cognitive dissonance, here it goes.
You are ignorant to what Suarez has done to countries.
Currencies. Get educated.
Did you miss the part about my degree in economics?
Did you miss the part about having an MBA? No, I'm quite familiar with the currency manipulation.
That's all factored into my opinion.
So now that you know that I understand the currency manipulation, and betting you don't have a degree in economics, guessing that I know more about it than you.
So now that you know, my dear troll, that I know more about the topic than you do, does that change your opinion, of my opinion?
So here's another troll, I think.
Thank you.
He's quoting me.
He says, if I couldn't smoke weed, I would have killed myself.
Scott Adams, self-help genius.
Well, no, that's a true statement.
I probably would have. But that doesn't mean you should smoke weed.
I definitely don't recommend that.
All right. Let's not lose time with the trolls.
The trolls are interesting because they teach you cognitive dissonance, which actually turns out to be my next thing.
So when I started realizing that people were not disagreeing with me and were not critics, but rather they were suffering from binary syndrome.
Binary syndrome means you think there are only two opinions, and if somebody doesn't fit into one of them, then you just assume they do.
And then they get mad at their hallucination that somebody fits into one of the binaries.
So here's the power of reframing.
And this is why I'm thinking about writing a book on this topic.
Reframing isn't about going from what's untrue to what's true.
It's about two frames that can both explain the world, but one of them has more utility.
That's all. It doesn't mean it's true.
And here's one that has more utility.
Instead of thinking of my critics as people who are mad at me or disagree with me, when I reframe them as people suffering from binary syndrome, the inability to see anything but two sides, any stress about being criticized goes away.
Because when you see them as mentally disabled...
Which I believe they are, temporarily.
You don't have the same, like, feeling about their attack.
So if somebody, let's say, is, like, if you went into a crazy place where somebody was, like, actually mentally disabled and they threw some mashed potatoes at you, You know, you got hit in the head with some mashed potatoes.
Now, if you knew it was somebody who couldn't control their mental process, you'd be like, ah, oh, okay.
Like, you'd get over it right away.
But if you thought somebody who could control it, it'd be a whole different thing.
So the way you think of things completely changes how your body feels.
So I would recommend this.
When you see people disagreeing with you, you can still respond the way you were going to respond.
You could act the same. But just internalize it as people with binary syndrome, if that's what's happening, if it's the two-option problem.
I saw another reframe today.
I reframed somebody's reframe.
So somebody was mocking me for getting vaccinated.
And used the hashtag referring to themselves as purebred.
Have you seen that? The unvaccinated are considering themselves pure humans, whereas the vaccinated would be, I guess by their telling, part human and part engineered vaccine or something.
So he's trying to dunk on me with this hashtag purebred, which is an interesting take, because here's somebody who's worried about an engineered vaccine, but not worried about a potentially engineered bioweapon.
He's not worried about the virus itself.
And I thought to myself, can you call yourself a purebred?
If part of your body is a Chinese-engineered, allegedly, allegedly Chinese-engineered virus, I would say that makes you an android.
Or not an android, but a...
What is it when you're half-human and half-machine?
What's that word? You know.
That word. So...
I think we need a new kind of science.
Our regular science has not worked.
And I would like to push for science A and science B. Science A would be the science that, you know, let's say science classic.
Cyborg, thank you. Yeah, if you get COVID and it turns out it's a Chinese-engineered virus and any of it stays with you, you're...
You're a cyborg. I'm sorry.
So let's have science A and science B. Science A would be the randomized controlled trials, the scientific process as you know it and as it's taught in school.
So science A would be science classic, but as we can see, it's not helping us as much as it should.
So we need a new science, and I would call it an anecdote-based science.
So instead of doing all the controlled trials, It would be a whole new branch of science which was based entirely on anecdotes.
So you would make your decision on vaccines based on one thing you heard about.
Or you heard about some athletes dying.
Instead of doing a study, you would just say, athletes dying, boom.
Vaccine's wrong. Now, a lot of you are thinking to yourself, oh, Scott, get out of us with your The Onion sarcasm parody.
I'm not so sure it's a parody.
Because in order for this to be a parody, wouldn't I have to know that the anecdote-based science got the wrong answers?
See where I'm going?
Look at the last year or two.
Did the anecdote people get it right more often than the science people?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I really don't know.
And the science people are lying to us So thoroughly, that if science says A is true, but you're looking at your neighbor dying, and you're like, I don't know that that's safe.
My neighbor just got killed by it.
Is that anecdote less valuable than the absolute unadulterated bullshit that is being sold to us as real science?
I don't know.
If you asked me six months ago, I would say, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, get away from me with your anecdotes.
I believe in real science.
Real science. Scientific process.
Peer review. Randomized, controlled trials.
People. Anything less than that, I will not accept.
And then you find out that the randomized, controlled trials are just for the short term.
And maybe the numbers are all fake.
Or not. You don't really know.
But you do know your neighbor just died in his driveway.
You know that.
And you know he died in his driveway a week after getting vaccinated.
Now, you do tell yourself, well, okay, somebody's going to die anyway, and a lot of people are getting vaccinated.
So I do get...
That it could be a coincidence.
And that people do die after getting vaccinated.
Just by coincidence. But is your neighbour dying in the driveway a week after getting vaccinated less reliable in the year 2022 than what the experts tell you is the data?
I don't know. I don't know.
Have I told you before that one of my bullshit filters is when the science and the observation, just your human observation, disagree?
So it's good when they agree, kind of bad when they don't.
I always use the example of cigarette smoking.
Science says that smoking cigarettes will give you lung cancer.
Sure enough, the people I know who got lung cancer, nine out of ten were cigarette smokers.
The feds. Observation.
Science. Same.
Is that exactly what's happening here with the pandemic?
I don't know. I feel like with the pandemic, observation and science are kind of all over the place.
And partly because the science is changing, at the same time our observations are changing, at the same time the very situation itself is changing.
So the science, the situation, and all the anecdotes are all changing at the same time.
So what good is the science in that context?
Well, I don't know.
Science A and Science B are looking a lot closer than they used to.
Scott, should asymmetrical censorship affect vaccine decisions?
Well... The trouble with editing is you really do have to make a decision about what's true and what would hurt.
And there's no way to do it right.
So unfortunately, it's the unsolvable problem.
As long as you have human beings deciding who sees what in any way whatsoever, you're never going to get it right.
So... I think that's about all I wanted to talk about today.
You may have noticed that my follower count is dropping like a rock.
Do you think that will change my behavior?
Probably not. You know, one of the things about this whatever it is, because I think we've genuinely developed a brand new model That's quite different than any other podcast I've seen.
And that model is that we, at least when we're on here at the same time, we're creating something like a meta brain that's the combination of all our brains, you know, with all the crazy stuff plus all the good stuff.
And that I feel as though...
This is almost like a new form of life or a new form of intelligence.
It's like a collective intelligence.
Because it's here every day.
It's dependable, right?
You know, it happens on a regular basis.
It's not just a one and done.
And it's getting stronger.
I would say. I would say that as people are coming in and dropping out and being acquainted with different thinking styles, that people are getting smarter and that this collective brain we're forming here is getting stronger.
And to me, that's kind of amazing.
I mean, deeply amazing.
And I don't know how far we can take it.
But if you think that the game here is for me to get the largest...
Follower count, would you agree that I would be acting differently if that were my goal?
You can see that, right?
Like, can you all see that?
You can tell from the production quality to the topics to the way I challenge my base, or let's say that's not my base, but the way I challenge the people who are my regular viewers.
You can tell I'm not trying to just make you happy.
Like, I'm trying to entertain you, of course, because that's part of the process.
But, yeah.
Newsstream says, we see you've changed.
So, now, I think my take on that, the people who says, you've changed, usually they mean my opinion on something.
Is that what you mean? Say more about that.
How many people think that I've changed?
And what does that mean? Do you mean my opinions have changed?
Or do you mean that, oh, you are more defensive?
Well, would you like a reason for that?
So have I told you before that if I have a bad day, I like to batch up all of the unpleasant things I like to do at the same time?
I've told you that strategy before, right?
Like, if you need to fire somebody, and you're like, ah, it's going to ruin my day, too.
I don't want to fire, but I have to fire somebody.
If you're having a bad day anyway, and there's nothing you can do about it, it's just going to be a bad day, well, use that day to fire somebody.
Because the day's already ruined.
You're just intelligently combining things.
Likewise, if you have a real stressful day at work, that's a real good day to exercise.
Because it'll really give you that extra push.
So sometimes when you see me acting, I would say aggressive, not defensive.
The stuff you see as defensive is trying to correct the record because the trolls, if there are enough trolls, they create the record of who I am.
And if the trolls create, let's say, a dominant record that is bigger than my own brand, then they can take me out of the game.
So if you want me to be taken out of the game, then I should not respond to the trolls, because then they would define me, and anybody who Googled me would get them first.
They'd say, oh, he's the guy who believes this crazy stuff.
So part of the show...
Is to show you what's wrong with their thinking and also to attack them, because I like to do it at least humorously when I can.
If you haven't seen me go after the trolls, I'd do it as entertainment for you as well as working things out for me.
But here's the extra level, the part that is less obvious.
Do you remember when I was taking prednisone and I told you it was making me super aggressive?
Many of you remember that.
And I could tell, too.
It was really noticeable that my aggressiveness was just through the roof.
Now, I'm not on prednisone now, so I'm not on any kind of pharmaceutical or anything that would make me more aggressive.
But sometimes things in your personal life are not going swimmingly right.
And sometimes you need to get out a little aggression.
And so, I've increased my workouts, which is working out really well.
And then when my trolls come after me, instead of saying, ugh, I'm going to have to fix this again, another troll saying I believe something I don't believe, and I'm like, I'll correct it.
But instead of doing that, I'm like, well, fuck you.
I think I'm going to have some fun with this troll.
So, yeah, so sometimes you're just seeing me working out my aggression on the trolls, and you shouldn't take it too seriously.
Is binary syndrome a new filter?
Yeah, you can think of it that way.
The binary syndrome works the same the way Trump derangement syndrome worked.
It's a way to explain what you're seeing that's hard to explain otherwise.
Without assuming you're the one who's wrong.
So if you want to remove from the option set that you're the one who's crazy, Trump-deranged syndrome did that.
that.
It's like, oh, I get it.
It's the other person who's crazy.
Yeah, I don't have any unsolvable problems, in case you're wondering.
I'm sorry.
Um... Didn't hear what you thought about Soros funding of Marxist DA campaigns?
Oh, that's a very good question.
So somebody said, what do I think about the Marxist funding of DA campaigns?
So in America, a lot of our district attorneys got into office with some Soros funding, which, by the way, I don't know how that works.
Is he American? Can somebody tell me he's not American, is he?
How does foreign money come into our elections?
Yeah. Well, I mean, I know he was born Hungarian, but he doesn't have an American citizenship, right?
So it's hard for me to understand how that's even legal, that money outside of the United States is influencing our elections.
I don't get that part.
There's something I don't understand about How we allow that.
I mean, I get that it's going through other entities, so I understand the flow, but I don't know why we allow that.
Why is that legal? Anyway, so the question was, how do I explain funding the progressive DA prosecutors who are letting everybody out of jail for fairly serious stuff?
And that goes back to my original calculation that he doesn't know exactly what he's getting for his money.
In other words, he may be throwing his money at people who lean left without knowing exactly what that's getting him, because he thinks that might be a little closer than the extreme right.
So I would love to hear in his own words if he thinks he's getting what he bought.
I'm going to make a prediction that you will never hear Soros say...
That the crime rate, which does have something a lot to do with how many people are being prosecuted, I don't think he's going to support it.
Like, if you asked him that directly, well, what do you think about this?
I think he's going to say something more along the lines of, I wanted to elect people who weren't putting people in jail for weed.
I feel like that's what he was going for, you know, like maybe fewer drug-related prosecutions, and then he got people who were too extreme.
Maybe. But this is what I say.
And to my critic, who was agreeing with me, remember, I'm coming at this from a point of extreme ignorance, and that's the point.
Why can't I figure this out?
If it's such a big deal, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out what he's up to and what the problem is.
Anyway, I'm not supporting George Soros.
As always, I'm non-binary on this.
I just want to understand it.
If there's some reason to hate him, I'm all in.
Hey, if you have a good reason to hate him, and I'm completely open to the fact that there might be, I mean, I hate him just for putting money into American politics.
So that's it. All right.
That is what I have for today.
If the news gets more interesting, so will I. But until the news does, I'm a little bit bound by that.
