Episode 1743 Scott Adams: Study Says Hormone Turns Male Democrats Into Republicans, Testosterone
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
No malarkey President and 9 inflation explanations
Mark Elias steps down from BLM board
CA turns down desalination plant in drought crisis?
Michael Shellenberger's rational solutions
Every CNN headline is about Russia losing
Degrading Russia's military with 40 billion
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
While I'm so late. And I think it's time for the simultaneous sip, which will be coming to you from a paper cup from a remote location.
It won't be exactly, exactly the same, but it will be good.
It will be so good.
And if you'd like to join me, all you need is a paper cup And those other vessels.
Fill them with your favorite liquid.
And join me now for the simultaneous sip.
Are you ready?
Go.
Did you say you can't see me?
Locals? I think you can.
Alright, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me tell you the interesting news of the day.
Let's see. Jeff Bezos is mad at Biden for his disinformation about inflation.
He thinks his disinformation board will look into it.
Okay. All right.
Here are the shocking stories of the day.
Now, I have to tell you, this is my personal journey.
But I never called myself MAGA.
I don't know if anybody knows that, but a lot of people associated me with it.
But I never called myself MAGA because I didn't like the name.
It sounds too much like a maggot.
And I don't like it.
I'm not a joiner in that sense.
I just don't like to be in a team.
But now that they have this new thing, have you ever heard of the new thing?
It's called Ultra Magga.
And I thought to myself, Magga sounds sort of ordinary and I don't like it, but Ultra Magga?
You have my attention now.
And so I thought, I'm going to look into this Ultra Magna situation because it sounds kind of sexy and strong and, I don't know, it makes me think of beer and condoms and all kinds of good stuff.
And I just wonder if they're still accepting members.
Do you know if there's any kind of hazing?
Does it cost a lot of money to join?
Are any of you, have any of you gotten into Ultra Magna yet?
How is it? Do they have secret meetings?
I'm just wondering. Alright, here's the most provocative thing I've done today, but the day is young.
Yesterday I was sitting there and I just had this thought.
I said to myself, "I wonder if anybody's ever checked the testosterone difference between men who are Democrats and men who are Republicans.
Do you ever wonder about that?
Do you ever wonder if they had the same amount of testosterone?" Well, of course you'd have to adjust for age and obesity and demographics and all that.
But the other thing you could do is just take a bunch of people who are Democrats and then give them testosterone and see what happens.
And somebody did that in 2021.
There was actually a study in 2021, so this is fairly fresh.
Now, again, Don't believe studies.
If you see there is a study that said anything, don't believe it.
But some of them are more fun than others, so I'm going to talk about them like they're true.
Who knows? Maybe it is.
And they said they tested the fixity.
Don't you love that word?
The fixity.
In other words, how stable?
Are things fixed or do they move?
We tested the fixity of political preferences of 136 healthy males during the 2011 U.S. presidential election season.
And the people who identified as strong identifiers as Democrats versus ones who are Democrat but sort of weakly favoring them.
They found that the more Democrat you were, the more strongly Democrat you were, the lower your testosterone levels.
But then they gave testosterone to volunteers.
So they took some Democrats, some males, and they gave them testosterone and it caused what they called a redshift among weakly affiliated Democrats.
This effect was associated with improved mood No effects, and it would strongly turn them into Republicans, percentage-wise.
So if you take somebody who's mildly Democrat, and you give them testosterone, they become Republicans.
Now, do you know why I Googled that?
Guess why I Googled it?
Why would I do that?
Because it seemed obvious.
I thought, you know, I can't be the only one who's noticing this.
It's just really obvious.
And so I thought, I wonder if anybody's ever studied it.
Sure enough, somebody studied it.
So, I would not necessarily tell you that this study will hold up.
I don't think most studies do.
But, this one matches my My opinion already, so therefore I give it much more credibility.
So actually, that's part of my BS filter.
So one of the ways that I look for bullshit is if what you observe does or does not match what the science says.
In this case, it's not proof, of course, but in this case, my observation over years matches perfectly with the science.
So I'm more likely to believe it, but that's also a trap for confirmation bias.
So watch out. Tom Cotton had a tweet in which he, Senator Tom Cotton, and he gave a partial list of Biden's prior explanations for inflation.
Because the important thing is, it's not Joe Biden's fault.
Here are the things that Biden has said about inflation.
Number one, there's no inflation.
Two, it's transitory.
Three, it's a high-class problem.
Then he said it's just a delayed treadmill.
Then he said it's something about chicken farmers, something about COVID, something about big oil, something about corporate greed, and now it's Putin's price hike.
So, I'm glad we finally got a president who was a straight shooter.
Remember when we had that guy who would say things that were crazy?
And he thought, well, that didn't pass the fact-checking.
Well, finally, we've got ourselves a no-malarkey president.
Because you know what would be a lot of malarkey would be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine different positions on inflation in two months.
That would be malarkey.
Well, Glenn Greenwald continues to make good observations about politics and here's one.
He talked about, so there's a House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer.
He's 82 years old.
And in the chambers of Congress, he said that we're at war with Russia, which was a big surprise to the rest of the country, who was not so sure that they were at war with Russia, but he seemed to think so.
And he's in his 20th term, and he's 82 years old.
He says we're at war with Russia.
And as Greenwald says in a tweet, if there's a bigger story than an 82-year-old senior House Democrat, now in his 20th turn in Congress, today announcing that the US is at war with Russia, And then Greenwald speculated that maybe we shouldn't have people that old be president.
But, that said, it remains an indisputable fact, no matter how much you wish it weren't true, that Donald Trump remains the only U.S. president in decades not to involve the U.S. in a new war.
He was no pacifist.
He radically escalated extant bombing campaigns, but it's still a fact.
Is that a fact? Is Trump the only recent president to not involve us in a new war?
It looks like a fact.
Although I would argue that Biden hasn't employed troops and he's reduced troops.
So I'll give him that. You know, if Greenwald is going to be fair about Trump, I'm going to be fair about Biden.
While we don't love what he may be doing with Ukraine, He did pull us out of Afghanistan, sloppily.
Probably everybody would have done it at some point.
But he didn't do that, and he hasn't committed new troops.
What you think is the baby sound is birds outside my window that sound like screaming babies every morning.
So what do you think of This $40 billion or whatever it is, $44 billion for Ukraine.
The United States now is saying directly that we're trying to degrade the Russian army and that now that's a new goal.
And to me that $44 million says we're trying to put Russia just completely out of business.
Now, if somebody said to you, it will cost you $44 billion And more.
Let's say 100 billion by the time you're done.
But you can put your biggest, let's say military, or second biggest, military adversary and a business.
Wouldn't you do it? What are the times, can we think of situations where we degraded but did not completely take over a country and that worked out really well for us?
When was the last time we really hurt another country badly?
And then we just walked away and, oh, it's all good now.
Yeah, we did a number on Iraq, didn't we?
Vietnam, etc.
But here's the thing.
Is Russia the same?
There are some countries that just wanted to be left alone.
I think Vietnam would be one of those.
But I don't know.
Is this a strategy that would work?
Now, Germany and Japan were different because they surrendered.
So we're not going to have a situation of Russia surrendering.
That's not going to happen. The USSR fell after Reagan's Star Wars.
I think Reagan got too much credit for that.
The ruble is stronger than before the invasion.
That feels like a weird situation.
Alright, well, here's what I think.
Number one, remember when we thought that we have some kind of source in the Kremlin?
Because our intelligence people got one right for change when they said that Putin was going to attack.
And so the thinking was that there was some Putin insider that gave us information.
But now, suppose that Putin insider is still there.
Because we haven't heard of anybody being taken out that would have been the insider.
Do you think that we would be doing what we're doing if the insider had not already told us that nuclear war wasn't going to happen?
What do you think? Because if we're just guessing about pushing Putin into a nuclear confrontation, then we're pretty reckless, aren't we?
But what if, what if, hypothetically, what if somebody on the inside said, look, If you can get rid of Putin for us, the thing I can guarantee is we're not going to launch any nukes.
Because, you know, the generals just won't do it.
Or something like that. You know, maybe it's the number two guy.
The number two guy says, alright, I'm just not going to give the command.
If you can get rid of Putin for us, I'll be president, maybe.
But I'm not going to give the command to launch a nuke.
I feel as if we must have some inside information.
Just, what do you think about that question?
Do you think, yes or no, we have inside information that we trust about Putin's ability or willingness to launch a nuke?
Don't you think we have to know that?
Because we're acting as if we know it, aren't we?
I haven't seen anybody say that.
But the way we're acting is if we have the answer to the question already.
We're not acting like we're tentative or we're worried about a nuclear strike.
We're acting like we know it's not going to come.
Why is that? I got questions, you know?
All right. Here was a surprise story.
The New York Post had this.
There are two people who apparently stepped down from or are no longer on, however they left.
The National Board of Black Lives Matter.
Now that by itself is not a story except who these two people are.
One of them is Mark Elias.
And The other was somebody I'd never heard of.
But Mark Elias and the Elias Law Group, they're strongly associated with getting Democrats elected.
That's Hillary Clinton's peeps.
These are as Democrat as you can get.
And Mark Elias was one of the people who caused the rule changes that some people say is the reason that Biden won in the election.
That these two people were on the Black Lives Matter National Board?
Doesn't that tell you that Black Lives Matter was just a Democrat political organization?
That kind of tells you that, doesn't it?
At this point, and there's some speculation that the reason that they're no longer on the board is because the national organization is just going to fall apart entirely, which I thought it sort of had.
But at this point, Everything you suspected about Black Lives Matter not being an organic organization appears to be true.
Wouldn't you say? Yeah, it appears to be true that Black Lives Matter was never a legitimate organization.
There were, you know, plenty of legitimate people who had legitimate concerns, but the organization itself appears to be completely just a Democrat organ.
Did you see the story about the Ukrainian soldiers are using facial recognition to send photos to the families and friends of dead Russian soldiers?
Imagine getting that photo.
That would not be a good thing.
But the thing they don't say is that they're doing it for war propaganda.
Although they say it in an indirect way.
They're trying to let the Russian public know that there are real Russians dying in the war because the Russians don't necessarily know how bad it is.
But apparently there's also some rule that says you have to try to give back your soldiers to the other side.
Sort of a Geneva Convention thing.
So Ukraine is hiding behind that Geneva Convention thing to say, oh no, we're just sending facial recognition.
We're using facial recognition to tell people where the bodies are in case they want to come get them.
Now, who's going to go to Ukraine right now to go get a body?
So to me, it just looks like a horrible, horrible war propaganda technique, which is probably entirely legitimate in the context of war.
Now, here's a question for you.
So we have this, you know, war crimes standards, and if you kill a civilian, for example, that would be a war crime.
If you do it intentionally.
And if you were to torture a captured soldier, that would be a war crime.
But why do we treat the war crimes the same if there's an invading army versus a defending army?
Now, if somebody's a defending army and they're captured and tortured, I would say that's a war crime, no doubt about it.
But what if you're part of the attacking army?
Is it the same standard?
Because let me be clear about this.
If a military attacked the United States, And I got a hold of one of the soldiers?
Seriously? If I watched people I know being killed by another military and I got control of one of their soldiers, I don't know what I'd do.
But I wouldn't be worried about war crimes.
I mean, that wouldn't be at the top of my mind, let me tell you.
I think I would be completely savage.
But I also think that shouldn't be a war crime.
Because if you attack my family or my country, I'm going to fuck you up in every way I can.
There's not going to be a limit.
Let me be as clear as possible.
If your soldiers are coming in to conquer and kill me, I'm not going to put a limit on what I do to your soldiers.
But it should be a limit the other way.
I mean, it should be certainly a war crime if the attacking army does stuff.
But if you're defending yourself, and you're losing especially, If you're defending and losing, yeah, you can do anything you want.
That's my standard.
My standard is no limits for the defending army.
What would you say? Anybody agree?
No military limits for the defending army.
Because it's not their fault.
If you're defending, you can use anything you want.
Anything. And it doesn't matter if somebody's already captured.
If that's part of making you feel good, or maybe it's discouraging the other soldiers, there shouldn't be any limit for torturing the attacking army.
Now I'm talking about actually invading your country, not just attack on some foreign battlefield.
I'm talking about they're coming into your home, they're shooting your dog, they're stealing your food, they're raping your wife.
Are you telling me I'm not going to kill every one of them I can get my hands on?
In the worst possible way?
Of course I am.
There wouldn't be any limit.
There's nothing I wouldn't do.
Nothing. So, I just don't like that standard.
So, California's got this gigantic drought problem you probably know about.
And California just turned down a water desalinization plant in Huntington Beach.
I think for environmental reasons.
Do we have the dumbest state?
Is any state dumber than California where we have gigantic problems and we're working as hard as we can to make them worse?
We have the dumbest state.
By far the dumbest state.
You know, a drought is one of those things that's sort of like a slow-motion disaster, and I'm never worried about those.
Because when something's a slow-motion disaster, I think, oh, they'll build the desalinization plants when they have to.
You know, they'll make another dam if they really have to.
It's just, you know, you'll have to get more dire before people make drastic decisions.
But I'm not sure that's going to work in California.
California looks like the anti-human part of the population is perfectly happy to let humans go down.
Because they're not smart enough to see the bigger repercussions, I think.
And I think that's obviously the problem.
There are some problems that you can say, well, there's a genuine difference of opinion.
But there are other problems, and this is clearly one of them, the water shortage in California.
This is clearly a case of people being bad at math, having too much control.
I say bad at math, meaning bad at analysis.
Because if there's anybody who thinks that the world or Californians or even the protected species are going to be better off if there's not enough water in California for the humans, who thinks that's going to be better off?
Like, I don't know how much the environmental impact would have been, but it's not going to be as bad as running out of water.
It's not really...
This shouldn't even be a hard decision.
Now, we're actually going to find out how stupid we are in my state.
Usually you don't get to find out in a really defined way, but in the governor race, it's going to be more Governor Newsom, which means more of this, I guess, or some Republican that nobody's going to vote for, or Independent Michael Sheldonberger.
Now Schellenberger does deep dives on all of these topics.
He's written books on several of the biggest problems in California.
He has specific solutions that all make sense and the numbers work and it's rational.
If he doesn't get elected, we just deserve what we get, honestly.
At that point, I don't know, if an entire state wants to commit some kind of weird, you know, state suicide, I guess they have that right.
I guess we'll do it.
But we do have a clean option to elect somebody who could, you know, put a big dent in all these problems.
Will we do it?
I don't know. Because remember, Schellenberger doesn't have any objectionable policies for a Californian.
Everything that he is proposing, you can see from the data, the science, the people who have tried it before, that it makes things better for everybody.
The disadvantaged, the poor, the homeless, the drug addicted.
His policies are directly better for everybody.
It's not like somebody's winning, somebody's losing.
It's just better for everybody.
How do you turn down the guy who's got policies that are better for everybody?
And nobody even would argue, well, nobody who's good in math would argue with much of what he's saying, because he just takes the most rational position.
He puts together a bunch of rational positions, and now he's running on them.
And unfortunately, he's not leading by 40 points in the polls.
He should be. Because there's not really a rational choice.
There's one choice that makes sense, and then everything else is literally just state suicide.
It's not even close.
But yet the vote will probably be, you know, completely unpredictable.
All right. Elections are real.
True. Why vote when it doesn't get counted, somebody says.
Never trust a guy with good hair?
All right. I got up a little bit late today, I guess, and I did not see all of the stories.
So I'm going to look at CNN for you and give you my first reaction to their headlines.
This is basically how I prepare stuff.
So, how many of you are willing to give me credit yet for predicting that Ukraine would surprise Russia with their military capability?
And it would be because of high-tech weaponry.
Am I not exactly right?
Now, and would you not say that that was...
Did anybody else say that?
Was there anybody else who said what I said, which is the Ukrainians will surprise with high-tech weaponry that comes from NATO and the US? I don't think I saw one other person who said that.
You're way off? Well, so here's...
but let me be specific about my prediction.
I'm not saying that we know that's what's happening.
Are you okay with that? So I'm not going to say that I can confirm as of today that Ukraine is actually beating Russia on the battlefield.
I don't think we can confirm that because there's too much disinformation coming out of there.
But the part that I will confirm Is that the way we're talking about it has gone from, I'm the only one saying this, to it's now more a common opinion, right?
Wouldn't you say it's a common opinion that Ukraine has at least taken Russia to some kind of a stalemate?
At least. Yeah.
Well, so I'll only say that the conversation has gone my way.
The reality, we still don't know.
There's a lot of stuff on CNN that I only read the headline because it's a video.
If I click on it to get the story, I'm going to have to wait for the commercial.
I'm never going to do that.
Sometimes the only way I can consume CNN is with multiple browsers.
So I'll click on a story and then I'll wait.
I'll turn off the sound and have another window open and wait for the commercial to go away.
So you have to have like four windows open to read CNN because you have to wait for the ads.
I just don't have that kind of time.
The way CNN is spinning it, so they've got one story about Russian journalists defying Putin.
Here's their message to the Russian people.
Now, I don't know what the story is because I'm not going to wait for the advertisements, but I'm more interested in the way CNN's covering it.
Dude, use an ad blocker.
An ad blocker isn't going to stop a video ad.
Catch up. Catch up with me.
You can't stop a video ad on On CNN with an ad blocker.
You would just sit there waiting for it.
And then another headline on CNN, Russia's retreat reveals new evidence of horrors.
So one story on CNN is about Russian journalists are turning against Putin.
Another about Russia's retreat.
Another about Zelensky welcoming the Senate, Mitch McConnell and other people from the Senate.
Photos that have defined the war, which will no doubt be horrors against the Ukraine people.
And what you need to know about Finland and Sweden, which is also, you know, they want to join NATO, so that's also negative against Russia.
And, yeah, Russia forces retreat.
So every story on CNN is a story about Russia losing.
Every story is a story about Russia losing.
Now that doesn't mean Russia's losing, right?
Just to be clear. Because CNN's a propaganda outlet, essentially.
But this seems to be, I think you can interpret that the Biden administration wants this to be the spin.
Would you say that's true?
Do you think the CNN's connection with the Democrats at the moment is so strong, you can tell what the Democrats want you to know or hear or think based on how their coverage shifts?
I think so. I think that's a fair assessment.
Now, that doesn't mean that there are meetings.
It could be just that they watch each other, the Democrats in the news.
They sort of watch where things are going and follow along quickly.
So it might be just that.
Everybody knows what team they're on.
Certainly that's true, I'd say, of the right.
You see the right, you know, the people on the right sort of moving in lockstep sometimes.
But I don't think there are meetings necessarily where somebody says, hey, you do this, I'll do that.
It's just sort of everybody knows what to do because they've done it enough, they've danced enough.
All right. NATO troops reveal how Putin's invasion is changing their training.
So it's going to be about us getting stronger against them.
Ukraine sends images of dead Russians.
We just talked about that. So basically, it's all about the Russians are dead, the Ukrainians are taking their...
It's basically complete wall-to-wall coverage that Ukraine is winning-ish, or at least doing well.
Let's look at Fox News and see how their headlines...
Now, this would just be the headlines, because the headlines really tell you what they're thinking overall.
Finland's president sends a direct message about NATO on a Putin call.
So that's sort of an anti-Russia thing.
And let's see.
And that's about it.
So Fox News is actually acting like the Ukraine war is a third level headline.
What's that tell you?
Unfortunately, it tells you that Biden is winning, doesn't it?
I feel like watching Fox News ignore the story is sort of more evidence that maybe the Biden strategy of degrading Russia is working.
And it looks like it will work.
Is that why Fox News is kind of staying off it?
Because it looks like Biden has actually succeeded?
And would the people on the right be happy or not happy if we'd found a cheap, I'll say $44 billion is cheap in this context, to essentially take one of our biggest competitors in the world and degrade them to, you know, 20% of their prior effectiveness?
Would that be worth $40 to $100 billion?
Would the Republicans $4200 billion if they knew that no American would die on the battlefield, and they knew it would take Russia just completely off the battlefield, basically.
Would Republicans have supported that for $100 billion?
Maybe. Some, I don't know.
Now, Republicans don't like intervention, right?
Mostly. They don't like to attack somebody that doesn't need to get attacked.
But they certainly like to have military superiority.
Don't they? So, I would think that if you said we can give you military superiority for, who knows, a hundred years over Russia, and we'll do that for a hundred billion dollars, would that be a good use of money?
I think it would be.
If, let's say, under the assumption That taking Russia off the battlefield in the future is a good idea.
I don't know if it is.
But if it's a good idea, it looks like they're going to pull it off.
Or they could. So...
All right.
Judge Thomas opens up on the impact of the tremendously bad abortion draft.
Why did he say it's tremendously bad?
He says it's tremendously bad.
You lose the trust.
It's always about the loss of trust.
He's not talking about the...
He's not talking about the draft itself.
Okay, well, he didn't have much to say.
Alright, it doesn't look like there's much to say.
When did Russia attack us?
They attacked the election.
Don't you watch CNN? What does Russia's strength currently hold at bay?
Nothing. Nothing.
You know, to me it seems like we should have always been making a deal with Russia.
Maybe this will get us closer to doing that someday.
But... Um...
Yeah, so it could turn out that Russia just turns toward China, but I think that would be the worst case scenario for Russia, wouldn't it?
Russia doesn't really want to be beholden to China, and China doesn't want to have much of its economy depending on Russia.
So, I think that situation probably will stay stable where it is, which is Russia and China don't want to have a military conflict.
And that's about it. How much to buy Greenland?
Yeah. And it could be that our biggest play has to do with the Arctic.
Do you think we were heading toward a war in the Arctic?
Because climate change is melting things and there's lots of resources and military use up there.
Maybe everything we're doing with Ukraine is a long-term Arctic play.
Because if we don't own the Arctic, it's sort of like losing in space.
It's such a strategically important area that you wouldn't want Russia to kind of move in and dominate it before you do.
Is it that strategically important?
Because remember, we've been talking for a long time that the Arctic is the next battlefield.
So did we just take out Russia from the next battlefield before the battle?
Because it looks like that's what's happening.
It looks exactly like that's what's happening.
Putin wants the Northwest Passage.
Yeah, Ukraine is not in the Arctic, but if we take out the Russian military, the Russian military won't be anywhere.
Oh, you love me way too much.
China is building icebreakers.
Well, there's a limit to how much ice you can break.
As long as Russia has people, they can fight Russia.
We need to stop all war.
You know, there's nobody really on the other side of that argument.
I've never heard anybody in favor of war.
Everybody always thinks there's a reason, there's an exception.
Well, I hate war, but we've got to do this one.
Do you wonder if Russia's nukes would actually work?
They did. They did pull off the hypersonic missile, so that looked pretty impressive.
They have put stuff in space, that's impressive.
But, I don't know.
I wonder if the nukes are as degraded as their tanks.
The Northwest Passage is doable now and has been for years, somebody says.
Doable, but can it be defended?
They're separate questions.
Well, people are saying they love me today.
I don't know why. Does anybody else love me?
I need some love today.
Can anybody give me some love?
I mean, I love all of you.
That's why I do this. You know, I don't know how many of you have ever heard this story, but for those of you who don't know the architecture of my personal life, I'm working on my second divorce now, but the first divorce, when I ended my first marriage, I found myself rather lost.
Meaning, you know, as soon as you lose a relationship and there's a family structure and you lose all of it, basically 100% of what your base assumption of who you are and how you connect to the world just goes away, you find yourself just sort of floating and you don't really have a reason.
And you think to yourself, okay, I don't feel suicidal, but I also don't have any reason to be alive.
Like what? To chase pleasure?
Is that the only reason to be live?
To go chase some more pleasure?
Because I'm not sure I want to do that.
Just chase some pleasure.
So, when I realized that I wasn't connected to a family structure in the same way before, I explicitly donated my body.
And I donated my body to the world, basically.
And I just thought, well, you know what?
Maybe I'll find some meaning by being useful.
You know, just be useful to the world.
Which is about when I started blogging and being more active in politics and stuff like that.
So what I was writing, it's also why I wrote certain kinds of books that were meant to directly help somebody's life.
So my shift, because I've largely taken care of my own needs, Has been to try to figure out how to help everybody else in the best possible way.
Well, thank you.
So that's what I've been doing.
And the reason I'm so committed to these live streams is that this is the most, let's say, vital part that connects me to the process.
And it also changes how I respond.
So you've sort of become a meta-brain for my own usefulness.
In other words, my own thinking is completely determined by the interaction.
How many of you have seen me change my opinion based on comments in real time?
You've seen that, right? I'll be talking along and then I'll be watching the comments at the same time and I'll be like, okay, stop everything.
I now change my opinion completely to your opinion.
You've seen that. It's happened a number of times.
And so we operate collectively as almost an entity or almost a creature.
So we're almost a creature that's like a collective brain in which I have some, you know, I have a special role, but I'm not in charge.
You know what I mean? If I were in charge, then your opinions might not have much impact on me.
But I'm more like a filter or an editor, so I have some, let's say, power, but it's not the power of being in charge.
Like, who's in charge is sort of the world, and I work for the world, and you and I work collectively to be more effective.
So that's how I think of it.
And I wish someday I could write a book about all the things I've been involved in, because you have no idea.
You have no idea what kinds of people contact you if they believe that they've seen you move a national event.
And there are a lot of people who believe, and I don't even know.
I mean, it's hard to know who influences what, what's a coincidence, what was going to happen anyway.
You don't really know that stuff. But there are lots of people who believe I have influenced national events.
And if they believe it, then other people believe it and they contact you.
So I've been involved in a lot of interesting stuff.
Someday, maybe I could tell you, but probably not.
I mean, a lot of people would have to be dead first.
And I think they're going to outlive me.
Because I'm not the youngest person in any of the stories.
So, probably you'll never know.
But believe me when I tell you, it's been a satisfying last ten years or so.
Alright, that's all for now.
I'm going to go do some other things.
I've got a book to write. And there's not much other news that's worth talking about.
I just got a good idea on the locals.
The birds are making so much noise out there, somebody suggested that I eat some breakfast and regurgitate it into the mouths of the little birds so they will stop screaming.
I'm going to say that's not the worst idea I've had today.
It's not the worst. Not at all.
But probably be doing something else instead of that.
