Episode 1726 Scott Adams: Twitter, Tesla, Ivermectin, DeSantis, Truth Social, Musk and More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Russia cuts off gas to Poland, Bulgaria
Ukraine war musing
Amber Heard musing
Elon Musk and Twitter
Governor DeSantis vs CNN
New York State AG vs President Trump
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, I don't think I've ever enjoyed being with you more.
And I mean you.
So, have you all prepared for today's incredible, incredible livestream?
Possibly the highlight of civilization, and certainly of your life.
Well, if you did prepare, you probably have something like a cupper mug or a glass of tank or chalice, a canteen jug, a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine, the end of the day, the thing that makes your oxytocin quiver.
It's called...
It's called...
It's called the Simultaneous Sip.
And that's why you're here. Go.
Ah. Sure, they come for the sip.
But they stay for the love and the enlightenment.
Where shall we start?
With the love? Do you want the love or the enlightenment first?
I love all of you.
You're awesome. You couldn't be better.
Have you ever thought to yourself how well you do some things compared to other people?
Not everything. But there are some of those things you do.
You know. You know.
Those things you do, other people aren't as good as you at those things.
Just remember that.
Well, let's see what's happening in the world.
Russia is cutting off their gas from Poland and Bulgaria over...
Those countries' refusal to pay in...
What the hell is their money?
In their Russian...
Russian...
What the hell is it?
Rubles or rupees? Who has rupees?
It's rubles, right? Which country has rupees?
I think those two...
India has rupees. Don't get your rubles and your rupees confused.
If you get your rupees tangled up with your rubles, well, where are you going to be then?
So my advice to you is just keep your rubles and your rupees.
And I wonder how far this is going to go.
Because I don't think people necessarily predicted that Russia would actually cut off two countries from gas...
And I'm not sure, how big a deal is that in the summer?
I mean, if it were a winter thing, it would be devastating, right?
But what do they do if they lose it in the summer?
They just put on more blankets or something?
At night? I don't know.
So, they cook with coal.
I have no idea what Poland and Bulgaria do, because their gas got cut off.
Does anybody know? What would that actually do?
Are people going to do less of or more of something?
Yeah, cold showers? I don't know.
So, I don't know how big a deal that is.
Now, the experts are also saying, well, Russia isn't going to cut off the gas to Germany because they've got nowhere else to sell it that's that big.
Carpe! Carpe Donctum just weighed in on YouTube there.
And I guess we'll be seeing you back on Twitter pretty soon.
Good to see you. Well, more memes coming, I guess.
So, let me make a prediction on this Russia cutting off gas stuff.
They'll probably have to see how it goes with Poland and Bulgaria, but apparently if they cut off gas to Germany, it's not as if they could just sell it to China.
Because those pipelines were already full and it would take a long time to build new ones.
So does Russia destroy its own economy by also destroying Germany and parts of Europe?
I don't know. We've got quite the brinksmanship thing going on here.
But here's a data point that I've been waiting to hear.
So I've made a prediction That, well, maybe it's just an observation, that you could predict what's going to happen in Ukraine and Russia by knowing the number of shoulder-mounted weapons and good munitions and drones they have.
So the good stuff that I call it, the things that would really, really make a difference, would be the Stinger missiles and the Javelins and the drones.
And we're hearing now that The United States doesn't even make stingers and javelets anymore.
Did you know that?
There's no assembly line.
Here I imagined, oh, they're cranking up the assembly line.
They're going to work twice as fast?
Nope. They haven't made them for years.
There is no assembly line.
Once we ship them, they're done.
It will take years to even, like, gear up to make another one.
Why are we finding this out now?
How long have I been telling you this is the single most important thing you'd need to know to predict the course of the war?
And we're just finding out now that, well, you know, we don't even actually make these.
And if we tried to quickly make them, according to Raytheon, talking about the Stingers, I guess, in particular, they wouldn't be able to get the parts.
So they couldn't make them, even if they had a factory.
They wouldn't be able to get the components to assemble in the factory without other factories making the other components.
So we're not even close to being able to have enough stingers and javelins to probably make a difference.
So unless there's something different with drones, because in theory, in theory you could get done with drones most of what you could do with a stinger.
Is that true? Or are the drones not powerful enough to take out a tank?
I don't know. It feels like some of them might be.
I mean, the small drones might not be, but the big ones would be.
So this is the thing to watch.
The number of portable, super-good weapons that the Ukrainians have access to, and it looks like they're not going to have access to enough.
So my current...
Prediction would be that Russia would win based on the variables today, right?
So any prediction that I make about Ukraine and Russia from this point on are going to be the dumb kind, where you say, well, suppose nothing changed, then where would things go?
Like, no new variables, but there are always new variables.
Always. Like, this is a pretty new variable, at least in terms of my understanding of it is new.
So, I don't know.
I don't see Ukraine having enough weapons to be able to withstand it.
The wild card here is, who's going to run out of ammo first?
Because now we know that the Ukrainians, wink, wink, have totally had nothing to do with destroying the weapons depots that are actually in Russian territory.
I guess there are three of them?
That are suspiciously on fire.
So it looks like a war of weapons.
You know what is interesting?
This entire war could have been fought without killing any people.
All both sides had to do was attack their weapons depots and see who could do it better.
Because whoever is better at attacking and destroying the weapons on the other side, I feel like that's who's going to win.
So why not do that first?
Just everybody say, look, before any soldiers shoot at each other, what's the point?
How about we're going to just attack your weapons depot wherever we can find them?
We'll give you three months.
For three months, all we'll do is attack each other's weapons depots.
You don't even have to put a guard there.
We're not going to go in there in person.
Right? Too dangerous.
We're just going to lob missiles and stuff at you, maybe some drones, helicopter now and then.
But we're just going to attack the weapons depots.
And once one of you is out of weapons, the war is over.
And then you don't have to get any people involved.
Am I right? Now, I'm getting an even better suggestion on locals, so I'll have to tell you on YouTube.
Really, the only idea that I've seen that's better than my own is a dance-off.
So I think the entire thing could have been settled with a dance-off, far less damage, and as good an idea as mine, certainly.
Well, let's talk about the trial of Johnny Depp and Amber Turd.
I guess the Johnny Depp team got a psychiatrist on the stand to analyze as best she could the situation with Amber Turd.
Some of you might remember Amber Turd was, she used to be Amber Heard, but now she's Amber Turd.
And Amber Turd was diagnosed by this psychiatrist who did not diagnose her in person.
So let's put that caveat on it.
I don't know how valid it is for somebody to diagnose somebody without ever talking to them in person.
I would imagine the psychiatrist say, well, you should talk to them in person.
But on the other hand, do you know what's the problem with talking to an Amber Heard in person?
Suppose Amber Heard or Amber Turd came to you as a patient and the psychiatrist says, how could I help you?
And Amber Turd, would she say, well, I have this terrible personality disorder, and it's becoming a huge problem for other people.
Can you help me solve my problem that really doesn't seem to bother me too much, but it does seem to be a problem for other people?
Can you handle that for me? And the psychiatrist would say, well, what are you doing?
She'd say, well, I lie like crazy.
I throw things, I hurt people, and I do all these things.
Is that the way it goes? So it's pretty valuable, right, for the psychiatrist to talk to this patient in person, because then the psychiatrist will get all this useful and valuable information from the person.
No. Do you know what is the worst way to diagnose Amber Turd?
Talk to her in person, because the nature of her problem, obviously, is a gigantic liar, right?
Right? With apparently no moral or ethical core whatsoever.
How in the world is she going to tell her psychiatrist anything except how to get drugs?
That's it. The only thing an amber turd would tell a psychiatrist is whatever she had to say in order to get whatever drugs she thought she wanted.
That's it. So...
I would say that if you're going to, I don't know if you would, but if you were inclined to criticize the psychiatrist who is the expert testimony, Because she did not talk in person to Amber Turd, I would say that what she did see probably was a lot better than that.
Because she heard the audio tapes that were unscripted.
She didn't know she was being recorded.
And she saw all the evidence from the trial and the testimonies.
And I would say probably that would be a better source than talking to the person in person with this specific problem.
For most any other problem, you would imagine that the person who goes to the psychiatrist actually wants it to be fixed.
You know, like, I'm afraid of something, or I keep having weird hallucinations.
So in that case, they're probably going to be honest with their psychiatrist, because they want to get fixed.
But this would be a description of a personality disorder that doesn't want to get fixed.
So here's what the expert said is the problem.
With Amber Turd, histrionic personality disorder, likely.
Now, none of this could be any 100% kind of stuff, so don't think anything is 100%.
And I guess the expert was named Curry, and she believes Hurt has histrionic personality disorder, and its key features are drama and shallowness.
And people with the disorder may be uncomfortable with not being the center of attention, and when they feel like they're not the center of attention, they will make up stories, take on victim or princess role, or seek caretaking, the expert said.
Now, you heard me give my expert diagnosis before we heard this, in which I said, Amber Turd is clearly a vulnerable narcissist.
But the expert is saying histrionic personality disorder.
And I heard somebody else say borderline personality disorder.
And so I ask you, was my analysis incorrect?
Because I said vulnerable narcissist fits everything on the checklist.
And the expert said histrionic personality disorder, presumably because it fits the checklist.
So who's right?
Let's take a vote.
Is Scott right?
With his diagnosis of vulnerable narcissist, for Amber Turd, or is the expert who does this for a living and is not a cartoonist, are they right with histrionic personality disorder?
Go. Who is right?
The correct answer is...
It's the same thing.
Now, it's not the same thing if you ask anybody who knows what they're talking about.
If you ask an expert, I'm pretty sure they would say these are different things.
If you ask them to tell you why they're different, they will mention all the symptoms of each, and they'll be the same.
Basically, it's just two sets of words that experts use for a set of conditions that are so overlapping that they can't really tell.
And you would treat them the same, basically, which is run away.
It's the same treatment.
The customer themselves, you know, the client, basically can't be helped if they come in with histrionic personality disorder.
They're just a monster, and there's nothing you can do about it.
If they come in with a vulnerable narcissist, if that's the diagnosis, they're just the same kind of monster, but with different labels.
They do the same fucking things.
So, does it matter?
If it's the same checklist of behaviors, with the same impact on other people, they also don't give a fuck themselves, because they're happy, it's not their problem, it's other people's problem, and what you do about it is exactly the same.
Run away, and certainly you can't treat them.
Just run away. Like, even the doctor would run away.
Like, even the doctor doesn't want to have anything to do with that, because the doctor's going to be a victim.
Right? These are people who turn everybody into a victim.
Everybody. They can't turn it off.
They're just destroying everything they touch.
So... So I'm going to say that I'm going to take perfect credit for my diagnosis, which, for all practical purposes, is the same as the experts.
What the expert did say is that Amber Turd did not have, in her opinion, PTSD, and that that was likely...
Maybe I'm over-interpreting this, but more like a cover story, if you know what I mean.
So PTSD is something that somebody with either histrionic personality disorder or vulnerable narcissist would claim as the reason for their behavior.
And it would not be uncommon for somebody to have such horrible monster behavior to claim that there is a very logical reason for it and they can't be helped.
There's nothing they can do about it.
And it's certainly not because they're just that way.
It's because there's something that happened to them, and so it's somebody else's fault.
Because it's always somebody else's fault.
It's the fault of other people.
All right. So I think that Johnny Depp should get some kind of a Nobel Prize for bringing to the attention of the world the existence of these monsters.
Let's talk about Elon Musk.
Question. Do you believe that Elon Musk would have purchased Twitter...
If not for the Hunter Biden laptop story being so obviously hidden by the press and affecting an election, probably.
Now, the other hypothesis is that it was the Babylon Bee getting banned.
And... We know that he cared about that.
So I would say we can say for sure that he knew about it, the Babylon Bee.
He knew about it and he had some kind of relationship with them because he was interviewed with them.
He seemed to like them. So which do you think was the more important one?
Do you think he would have spent $44 billion because the satirical group got banned?
I don't think so.
I mean, he might have cared.
I imagine he did.
Like, you know, on some personal level.
And also, from a free speech level, he probably did care about the Babylon Bee.
But I don't know that you would spend $44 billion to fix that, would you?
You know? But the Hunter Biden laptop story, that's a $44 billion problem.
Like, if you had $44 billion and you said, are you serious?
The Hunter Biden laptop story was disappeared by the media?
One of the most important things that could have ever been reported on at the time it needed to be reported on.
It was just disappeared.
What's the size of that problem?
The size of that problem is easily $44 billion.
In fact, that would be a bargain.
If you could fix that problem for $44 billion...
It would be a bargain. Given the benefit it would be to the country, and free speech, and the basic, the vital maintenance of all the things that matter to make our system work, yeah, that's worth $44 billion.
So we can't get in his mind, and never will, like I always say, if you could think like Elon Musk, well, then you'd probably be like Elon Musk.
But we're not. So we don't know what he's thinking.
But I will say...
And first of all, he didn't spend $44 billion.
I hear people talk like that, and I say it as kind of a shorthand.
But you know, he didn't spend anything, right?
He basically got a loan, I believe...
That allows him to buy something that has the same value-ish of the money he spent.
All he did was take one kind of asset and turn it into another kind of asset.
That's not buying something.
Because when you buy something, you think in terms of consuming it.
So it's not that kind of buying.
All he's doing is transferring one asset into another kind of asset.
In this case, the asset might have been his bankability.
You know, the ability that he has.
He can repay a loan.
So that's his asset.
All right. Truth Social...
So apparently Truth Social is topping the Apple app download list at the same time that Musk is buying Twitter.
And here's what makes Elon Musk different than other people.
Well, lots of things.
But he tweets...
After he buys Twitter, he tweets that True Social is beating Twitter and TikTok as the most downloaded.
Now, is there anybody else who gives marketing attention to their competitor?
Remember he got in trouble for saying negative things about Tesla's stock price at one point?
He said his own stock price was too high, and it suddenly dropped, I believe.
Now, Isn't this why people like him?
Because he just says something is true just because it's true.
If you're going to find out anyway, there's no reason he should hide it from you, and it's interesting.
So if it's interesting, and it goes to the freedom of speech...
Now remember, Musk is telling you that the reason he's buying Twitter has to do with freedom of speech, right?
You would think that somebody who likes freedom of speech would like the fact that there are alternative platforms.
So it's an interesting way to go that you have to kind of respect, because presumably he can only protect his $44 billion by doing a better job, or at least as good a job, as his competition.
So it's sort of just, you know, game on, full transparency, let's compete, let's fix our...
Fix our stuff. Let me tell you what would help me the most for a feature on Twitter.
I would like a feature in which I could turn off comments or block comments from any accounts that have fewer than, I'll just say, 10 followers.
Now, those are almost all the trolls.
Now, I hate to tell you, and if only the blue checks could do it, That's all you would need.
So if you had a blue check, could you turn off anybody who's got fewer than 10 followers?
Because the reason is, if they're real, it shouldn't take them that long to get 10 followers and then participate.
If they're not real, they just got created that day, and the bot identifier that seeks out and destroys bots, one assumes that exists, right?
Wouldn't Twitter have a bot hunting bot?
You know, Twitter's own bots would be hunting the other bots, I think, by behavior.
So if you could get rid of the worst bots on the blue check accounts, which have the biggest visibility, that would be huge, you know?
And it wouldn't really hurt other people too much, because 10 followers, you could get that.
And I think you could even identify the bots that were artificially trying to get 10 followers by following each other, because that would show up to the bot hunter as well, I think.
So I signed up for Truth Social.
If you want to find me there, I'm at at Scott Adams Truth.
So it looks like you don't get to pick your username.
You get to pick the first part, and then it looks like the system adds the word truth to the end.
So I didn't have an option of Scott Adams Says.
I think somebody got that one before I got there.
So there's probably a fake me over there.
Unless I signed up twice, which is possible.
I may have signed up twice.
Could be. So I don't know how much tweeting I'll do over there, but I'll say again that I don't understand why someone hasn't made a product that can just post to all the sites.
Can somebody tell me, is there a technical reason that can't be done?
Because I've described exactly what it should look like.
What it should look like is you just start typing whatever it is you want to post, or you're putting in pictures or whatever, and then all of your various social media accounts are lit up.
But let's say you go over the character count for Twitter.
As you're typing, the Twitter indicator should go off to show that you would not be able to post that.
So then you say, okay, okay.
If I take out a couple words, it'll work for all of my accounts.
Or if I make a shorter video, it'll work for all of my accounts.
But maybe I don't care, so this one I'll just put in the ones that are highlighted.
I should be completely oblivious to where the account is.
Shouldn't I? Shouldn't I be able to post once and have it go to all the accounts?
Now, I don't know if you could do that in terms of reading and replying.
That might be a step too hard.
But in terms of posting, there used to be that service, but I don't hear much about it, where you could do that.
It never really quite worked.
So I'm expecting somebody to tell me there's an account that does that, but I don't see it.
So if you know of that, let me know.
It could be illegal. Maybe there's just no way to do it.
But I thought they all had...
How could it be illegal if you have your own...
Could you automate your own sign-ons and postings?
I don't know how that would be illegal if it's just your own account.
With a, yeah, an IFFT, an IFFTT, right?
Some version of that. Right, so forget about the technical parts, but it seems like it's doable.
I saw DeSantis get targeted by CNN. I was wondering when that would happen.
And it looks like suppressive fire, because the way CNN talks about DeSantis is in a uh-oh kind of way.
You know what I mean?
So when the left looks at DeSantis, they just kind of say, uh-oh, he looks pretty solid.
But I was so interested in what they would have to say negative about him.
And so they talked about how good he was at sort of responding to what his base would find as, you know, red meat and very satisfying.
And many of us have said the same thing.
I've been saying it for a while.
That DeSantis is the most capable politician who is working at the moment.
Now, Trump's an outlier, a special case.
It's hard to compare him to anything.
But of the people who are, you know, not Trump...
He's, I would say far and away, better than the next best person at the moment.
And he's got this track record he's setting up of doing these really spot-on responses to things that are in the headlines and just right for his base.
And yet, not so far...
That they become easy targets for the other side.
So he's hitting that sweet spot.
He just hits that sweet spot over and over again.
And it's not an accident.
At this point, it's obvious that it's strategy, it's technique, it's skill.
It's having good advisors.
It's whatever it is. It's the real thing.
So CNN takes a whack at him.
And the best they can come up with is generic concerns.
Listen to this. So the end in this piece by Wolf, I think, whoever it was, their opinion person, or one of them, he says...
They're talking about...
It's talking about how much skill he has, DeSantis, but then the closer is this.
But it's easy to imagine very different uses for the massive federal apparatus if someone with such talent, meaning DeSantis, for the politics of division were to assume the office.
Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
I thought we were talking about just his talent.
How did his talent...
Turned into a talent for politics.
Okay, that's good so far.
A talent for politics.
Of division. Of division.
Where did that come from?
So you get this whole opinion piece where you sort of agree with it.
You're like, uh-huh, yeah. Yeah, he is really feeding his base.
Yes, he is talented. Well, he is talented more than more people.
You're just shaking your head. Yes, yes, yes.
And then they do this.
They just slip in. Talent for the Politics of Division.
And I'm thinking, well, that division part wasn't part of the story so much.
Like, that was just slipped in like it had been proven or something.
Or like it's such a fact that you just accept it.
It's just obvious. But there's no evidence for it.
There's just evidence that he's good at what he does, which is satisfying your base, basically.
So they actually believe he's too talented to be president because that would cause more divisiveness.
Do you know what causes more divisiveness?
Apparently the Biden administration.
Because according to polls, the divisiveness is at an all-time high under Joe Biden.
Now, I don't think that's necessarily Biden's fault, as I also don't believe it's necessarily was Trump's fault that there was more divisiveness under Trump than there was before.
I don't necessarily think it was Obama's fault that he was the most divisive president since the one before who was more divisive than the one before.
It seems pretty clear to me that the media is just making it more divisive no matter who is the president.
It's not really the person in office, is it?
Because it's clearly the media and social media is making everybody look more divisive.
Meanwhile, the walls are closing in on Trump.
Listen to the way this story is couched.
This is, I think, CNN also.
Lawyers for New York State Attorney General's Office.
Now listen to the language that the lawyers for the New York State Attorney General's Office use.
Right? Now keep in mind that nobody has been proven guilty by anything in this story.
This is just an investigation.
But look at their language.
They said they are nearly finished with their civil investigation into the Trump organization after taking steps to unravel the real estate company's assets that they described as being as complex as a, quote, Russian nesting doll.
What? What?
What? Now, you'd have to know that the investigation is looking into whether the Trump organization had some kind of illegal relationship with Russia, or a Russian bank, I guess.
And then the people who are these supposedly...
They should be objective, even when doing their job, because they're government employees.
They refer to the complexity of it as a Russian nesting doll.
Which really is like saying he's guilty without showing you any evidence.
Isn't it? That feels completely like fireable offense.
I would say that if a lawyer...
Said this in public about somebody they're looking into and called it a Russian nesting doll, given that that's the very nature of what they're looking into, without showing you evidence and without the benefit of a court telling you that somebody is guilty of something, this is wildly, wildly inappropriate.
Now, I don't think it's illegal.
I don't know if you could sue them for libel or something.
Might be premature for that.
But I think you should be fired.
You should be fired for that.
In fact, you should be fired even if the boss loves you, and even if you agree with the comment.
You should still be fired for that.
That is so fireable.
Oh my God, it's fireable.
Am I wrong? Does anybody disagree with that?
It's perfectly legal, and they have a right to their opinion, I guess.
But from that office, you want somebody who at least pretends to be objective.
This is not pretending to follow the law.
They should at least put forward the impression that the law is what's going to guide them, not their opinion.
Anyway, the walls are closing in.
The population of San Francisco plummeted 100,000 people Between 2020 and 2021.
And I have to ask this.
Is there any major city that didn't lose occupants?
Maybe ones that didn't close down?
But I don't know how cities survive at all.
Because it seems to me the cities are for the benefit of the rich people.
Because then all the people who support them and everything is close, they can take a helicopter.
They don't have to worry about the traffic or the crime, right?
But it seems like the cities are designed to benefit the top 1%, and everybody else is going to suffer in these horrible living conditions because they need to be near the money, and the top 1% is where all the money is.
So I feel like cities are just a horrible system for humans.
And that the natural...
If I had to predict, I think cities will become depopulated as a long-term trend.
Because the quality of life will be so low.
It's where all the crime is going to go.
It's where all the protests are going to go.
It's where the terrorists are going to attack.
If nothing else, the development of drones that anybody can use for a terrorist attack should make cities completely unlivable.
Because if you can do something, people are going to do it.
Somebody's going to fly drones into the city and start doing something horrible that I don't want to specify.
And then people are going to say, you know, the safest I could be is to live in a non-dense area because it doesn't make sense for a terrorist to attack a non-dense area.
So I think people are just going to be driven to non-dense living styles.
Because one individual can take out a city now.
It used to be one individual could take out a room full of people, like a mass shooting.
But now it'll be very soon, and maybe we're already there, one individual with some drones and some bad intentions could take out a city.
So it seems like depopulating cities is just going to have to happen.
And on that good news...
So I retweeted today that study that people didn't like about ivermectin, saying it was the biggest study and said it didn't work.
But then people said, wait, you studied it wrong, you didn't study it with zinc, or you waited too long, or you did it wrong, or whatever.
The things we always say when we don't like what a study says.
But here was my only...
I don't want to reopen the question of whether it works or not.
I'm beyond caring about that at this point.
But I would just point out that the New York Times was the source of what I tweeted.
And on one hand, you've got the New York Times saying that there's a gold standard randomized controlled trial that says ivermectin does not work, period.
So that's the New York Times, the paper of record, and the gold standard trial.
On the other hand, arguing that it does work, I've seen people on Twitter say that they took it and they recovered from something that has a 99% recovery rate.
And so because they took ivermectin and recovered from something with a 99% recovery rate, they're quite convinced it was the ivermectin that made the difference.
And so you have that evidence on the other side.
Now normally...
In a, let's say, five years ago world, I would have said, those are not the same.
One of them is the paper of record, the most reliable newspaper, with the most reliable kind of study, gold standard, randomized controlled trial.
I mean, that's really solid.
But a guy who thinks that recovering from something that 99% of people recover from, no matter what they do, He thinks he knows it because he took the ivermectin.
That seems a little sketchy, right?
Well, not anymore.
I judge those to be equally credible.
Actually, really. Actually, I'm not joking.
There's no difference in the credibility of those two things.
They both have zero credibility, don't they?
Which one has any credibility?
I'd say neither.
Wouldn't you? Would you give any credibility to a New York Times report about a randomized controlled trial?
Sorry. It's 2022 and that dog is dead.
That dog is dead.
I'd love to say, I would love to live in a world where the news was believable and the randomized controlled trials were not maybe tainted by who knows what.
But we don't live in that world.
We just know what people tell us.
That's it. That's all you know.
All you know is what somebody told you.
So I got two completely non-credible sources.
So what do you do? Well, I will tell you that if somebody said, well, I don't think the ivermectin's going to hurt me, and I don't have any credible information that it's going to help me, but maybe...
And then they go ahead and take it.
I would not be the one saying that they took horse tranquilizer or whatever it was.
Why did we shut down our economy for this?
Well, probably because all the dead people.
I'm going to say that.
Scott and CNN, same thing.
Good point. So...
Let me put the standard on myself as someone on the Locals network.
Just challenge me.
Who would be more credible, CNN or me?
Go. Who's more credible, CNN or me?
Now, on the Locals platform, they actually pay a subscription fee, so I think that would be the most biased group, but thank you for saying me.
Scott Plus. Yeah, did you hear about the Scott Plus streaming service?
Didn't do as well as we'd hoped.
Well, here's the difference.
The difference is CNN tries to give you the facts, and I don't do that job.
So we're not really in the same job.
We're in the interpreting. I'm interpreting facts.
And predicting, and they're telling you facts with their original reporting in many cases.
So not exactly comparable.
But nothing is credible, that is true.
Nothing is credible. So here's what I hope that I can offer you.
Number one, I generally tell you, or I try to, where my biases are.
So I tell you what I've invested in.
I've told you I've invested in Tesla, Twitter, Apple, and when others come up, I tell you.
And I tell you that I did not invest in Disney, for example.
So... So, you at least know where my bias is.
And I'm not being paid by any big pharma.
But I could be lying, right?
So you always have that problem.
And so I guess I would say that the thing I'm trying to do is help you look at things through a different frame.
You lost your shorts yesterday.
What's that mean? The short sellers?
Yeah. So what I'm trying to do is give you a different way of analyzing the same stuff, but I don't know if the stuff is real.
That's the problem. So I can help you with the how to think about stuff in a different way.
Usually it's the different way part that I think I can add.
Not so much better way, but sometimes just seeing things in a different way adds something.
How to reconcile the 99% survive and all the dead people?
Math. Math.
1% times lots of people.
All right. Constance says, I don't think you lie, but you are misinformed sometimes.
As opposed to who?
So Constance says, I am misinformed sometimes, to which I say, of course.
Of course. But compared to who?
Is there somebody who's well-informed?
I mean, better than I am?
I don't know. I think we're all misinformed, isn't that the whole problem?
If anybody were well-informed, or they labeled themselves well-informed, I would say anybody who labels themselves well-informed, don't listen to them.
That would be somebody you shouldn't trust at all, because that's somebody who doesn't even know what they don't know.
At least I know what I don't know.
If you don't know what you don't know, you call yourself well-informed.
You were not even trying to get informed.
Well, that's true, too.
So Holling says that on some topics I was not even trying to get informed.
That is absolutely correct.
Do you know why? Do you know why on some topics I was intentionally not trying to do my own deep research?
Because that's ridiculous.
It's ridiculous. So I do avoid doing things that are ridiculous, For example, looking into climate change and doing my own evaluation of their science.
What good would that do?
It wouldn't do any good, because I would have no reason to think that my deep dive into the subject got me the right information.
So the people who are proud of their ability to do their own research are almost always the most wrong.
Now, I will make an exception for the top, I don't know, 5% of smart people.
Maybe the top 5% can do their own research and maybe get a better take than they could if they hadn't.
But 95% will do their own research and just believe in an extra bunch of lies or alternative lies, and they won't know it.
So if you don't have some special ability to sort through bullshit, doing your own research just gives you more bullshit.
Now, I don't think I have that ability.
I don't believe I have the ability to research something and I can tell, for example, which studies were good.
I don't have that ability.
I can talk to people who seem to have that ability and listen to them, but you end up always with the same result.
There's always somebody who thinks every study is bad.
Always. And it's always somebody who knows more than I do.
So what do I do with that if there's always somebody who thinks the study is faulty?
So... But when I referred to ivermectin as horse meds, I was doing it sarcastically.
I guess that's one of my problems.
Sometimes people can't tell when I'm kidding.
All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that we've run out of news and commentary.
I'm going to tell you one thing about my growth of Twitter users, which is way up, right?
It's up gigantically, even more than it was up yesterday, and yesterday it was up ten times.
So I think today it's up 20 times baseline or something like that, just for a number of new users.
So I took a look at my users.
It appears to be all bots.
I don't think it's people coming back on the platform.
That's a little bit of it.
I don't think it's the algorithm changed, unfortunately.
Nope. It clearly is bots.
So I don't know if anybody else is having the same experience, but just do a quick look at your new users.
They're all zero followers.
They're obvious bots.
So it looks to me like somebody or buddies who control bots have decided this is a good time to go nuts with them.
And it could be they're trying to create a narrative.
It could be they're trying to create a narrative that Well, the one that you believe, which is that the algorithm already got changed by people trying to hide stuff.
You know, I don't think that's going to happen.
I don't believe that there's anybody with access to the algorithm who could change it at this point in some substantial way where you're trying to hide something where that wouldn't be, you know, let's say, easily found.
Because they got backups on backups.
You don't think it would be obvious if somebody tried to erase the algorithms or even tried to tweak it to get rid of any hidden stuff?
I don't know. Because at the very least, you would see a behavior shift that couldn't be explained by normal activity.
So at the very least, the behavior of it would show up.
Now, I don't think you're seeing that yet.
This looks like a false flag attack.
You know what I mean? It looks like somebody who's trying to make it seem as though the algorithm is already changing.
Or there's somebody who's a competitor who just wants a bunch of bots on Twitter to see if Elon Musk can really get rid of bots because he says that's one of his main things.
My truth social name is Scott Adams Truth.
All one word is Scott Adams Truth.
So I just signed up if you're just joining us.
Poison pill? I don't know.
Shorts to cover?
Eh, yeah.
You think so? Do you think it's an investor who's doing it as some part of a...
A short or a long position?
I don't know. But you're underestimating the manual filtering by the moderators.
I'm not underestimating that.
I just wasn't talking about it.
So clearly there is manual filtering.
But I think even if there were a change in that, there would be a paper trail.
And they would be backed up.
There would be some internal email that says, you know, do this differently.
And somewhere it's on the server.
I just don't think that they could cover up the crime.
So if you think that Twitter is like, you know, quickly shredding the documents, I feel like you're living in a world where it's an embassy.
Where the documents maybe are only on paper.
So if you shred them, they're really gone.
I don't think Twitter can shred its backups and its backups.
I don't know. I think it would be pretty obvious to discover any problems.
So, that's all for now.
Watch out for the bots, and I will talk to you tomorrow.
