Episode 1819 Scott Adams: Biden Builds Back Better...Trump's Wall. And Joe Manchin Runs Everything
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Body language suggestion for Karine Jean-Pierre
Smart, reasonable Joe Manchin's energy bill
A funny observation about name-calling
Biden authorizes completing key part of border wall
DC Mayor Bowser's sanctuary city
Reframing your brain with simple, powerful sentences
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Welcome to the best day you've ever had in your entire life, the highlight of civilization, the best part of the morning, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes your oxytocin rock.
Yeah, it's coffee with Scott Adams.
Same time, same place every day, and all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank of chalice.
It's time to canteen jug of flask, a vessel of any kind.
So I don't have sound on the...
Hold on. Hold on.
I can fix that.
I can fix that. How about if I plug in the microphone?
Does that help? Is anybody happier with the microphone actually plugged in?
Well, here's something you should learn about setting up your podcast studio.
You can never have a podcast studio in which any part of it ever changes.
The minute you use your iPad for any other purpose, which is what I did, I used my iPad for something else for a minute, you forget to put it back the way it was.
So that is your lesson for the day.
But I don't believe we did the simultaneous sip yet.
I think we don't want to skip that.
And now... Back to where we were.
Are we back to where we were?
Back on track? Okay. Simultaneous sip.
Go. Oh.
Oh, that's good. I don't know.
I think it was the waiting for it that made it extra good.
Well, I don't know if you heard, but there's a movement to rename monkeypox.
Monkeypox. I think some people think it's racist sounding or something.
I don't know. But we're going to rename it.
And some of you may have seen that Tucker Carlson had a suggestion for it.
I believe it's based on the fact that there is some suggestion.
By the way, is this confirmed?
I keep saying on Twitter, but not in the regular news, that it's primarily being spread by gay sex.
Is that just a Twitter thing?
Or is that actually...
Is the medical community saying that?
Because it seems like Twitter says it a lot, but I don't see it at all in the regular press.
Is the press trying to downplay the fact that it's primarily spread that way?
Well, thankfully we have Tucker Carlson to set us straight because his suggestion for renaming monkeypox was schlongcovid.
Schlongcovid. Now, you may say, Scott, that is somewhat offensive, possibly homophobic.
To which I say, well, don't blame me.
Blame Tucker Carlson. I will simply point out that it's clever.
Now, let me ask you this.
Can we not carve out a special category of humor for things which you know are wrong, but they're funny anyway?
Is that something we can't do?
Can't we say, yeah, I get that.
That's insulting to some group or group of people.
But what if it's really funny?
Isn't that okay still?
Because I try to use the same standard for other people that I would use for myself.
If somebody walks up to me and says, you're bald, I'll say, well, that's offensive.
But if they say you look like a thumb, I say, that's kind of funny.
I do look like a thumb with glasses.
That's kind of funny. If it's funny, it's funny.
Is there no way we can come together on that?
No? I feel like we should...
Because there was a situation recently, maybe I'll talk about it later, in which I saw a joke that was clearly offensive.
It targeted some group that you shouldn't target.
But on the other hand, the reason it was funny was because everybody recognizes it as wrong.
That's different than just making a racist joke where some people laughing at it are laughing because they think it's true or something.
But if you're laughing at it because it's so wrong, I don't know, I feel like that should be okay, right?
I mean, it's hard to distinguish why somebody's laughing at a joke, but if you're laughing at it because you know it's wrong, and like it's the wrongness that's exactly what's making you laugh, I feel like that's got to be an exception.
Alright, but of course there's going to be some point where it's too much.
I have a suggestion for the spokesperson for the administration, Karine Jean Pierre, whose name I'm starting to love.
That's a really good name, isn't it?
Karine Jean, so the first two parts rhyme.
Karine Jean Pierre.
Sort of a perfect name, it really is.
But, I don't believe she's quite ready for her job.
Maybe she'll grow into it a little bit.
But here is my suggestion to her for her communications skills.
Do not try to tell somebody something is true while your body is saying it's not.
You need to get your words and your body compatible.
And what I mean is, your words, if you believe that what you're saying is true, you should say it matter-of-factly, because true things can be said matter-of-factly.
But things that you know are a lie, don't act like you know it's a lie.
You should at least pretend that you don't know it's not true, but she actually acts like she knows it's not true when she's saying it.
Let me give you an impression.
First, I'll start with somebody saying something that's true, and they know it.
Tomorrow morning, the sun will come up at 5.21 or whatever.
Let's say that's true. Tomorrow, the sun will come up at 2.21, whatever's true.
Never 221. Let's say 5.
Doesn't that sound like I believe it's true?
The sun will come up tomorrow.
Now let's do Corinne Jean Pierre telling you the sun will come up tomorrow like she doesn't believe it.
You ready? Well, the sun, you see the planet, the planet is rotating, but the sun, the sun, the sun will come up around, but really, it might look like, it might appear to you as if the world, you know, the sun is going around the world, but really the world is stationary.
Well, not really stationary, it's moving through space, but let's not talk about that.
Why does she act like she knows she's lying?
Am I wrong? Now, pundits make this mistake all the time on TV. I call it the pleading, begging look to factual statements.
If you have a factual statement that's just a fact, say it that way.
If you have a factual statement that even you don't believe, say it in that pleading voice.
Well, you know, the recession's not so bad.
It's not so bad.
No. Recession's not bad.
That's the way you say it.
If you believe it, if you believe it, say it that way.
All right, that's my advice.
Here is the best potential news that probably isn't totally true.
But I like telling you things that might be true that are positive.
Are you okay with that? So where there's some positivity involved, I might go a little extra.
Give you a little extra positivity.
Yeah, just because it feels good.
Might not turn out.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
But you're going to feel good in the meantime.
So that's worthwhile, right?
So I saw this tweet from Ian Martisas.
Now, keep in mind that he has some background...
And some expertise that allows him to say the following things.
I have no expertise or ability to judge it.
So this is the part where, well, it might be true.
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
And it's a hypothesis.
So Ian puts it forth as a maybe.
It's not a statement of fact.
It's a maybe. He says if you have natural immunity...
But have not received a COVID vaccine, then there is a good chance recovery from a reinfection could provide you with potent antibodies that neutralizes SARS-1 and SARS-2, and all variants.
MERS and maybe even common cold coronaviruses.
So in other words, if you didn't get the vaccine, but you did get infected, you might have protection from all kinds of things.
But, you know, just sort of throw it in there.
Now, and the argument is a technical one that I can't summarize.
But the technical one is that the vaccines prevent infection in, say, a narrow way.
Whereas if you actually get infected, your infection is more of a broad protection because everything gets activated by that.
That's sort of the general, idiots explanation.
Now, I don't know if this is true.
I also don't know if there's any difference between people who got the original vaccine, people like me, versus people who got Omicron vaccinations specifically.
I would think, now this would be a question for Ian, I would think that if you got only the original vaccination and the second one, And that wore off, because they say it wears off, right?
If that completely wore off and wasn't really applicable to Omicron anyway, wouldn't the Omicron infection that I did get give me all this immunity that Ian is speculating might happen?
I don't know. Maybe.
So what would happen if the next several years we see the incidence of regular colds and all kinds of viruses go way down?
Is it possible that Omicron acts like a vaccination?
Like a better vaccination than the actual vaccinations.
It might. Now, I don't recommend getting Omicron.
It kicked my ass for a month.
I mean, it really kicked my ass for a month.
It was pretty rough in the exhaustion part.
But maybe there's something good that comes out of it.
All right, here's some more good news, maybe.
Or weird news.
Who actually runs the country?
Or the world, I guess.
Have you ever figured out You know, on paper, it's Joe Biden and blah, blah, blah, the Congress.
But when you actually look at who actually matters, when it comes to legislation, it's just Joe Manchin, right?
Am I wrong? I mean, I said this before any of this became true.
But early on, I said, there's only one person running the country.
It's the smart one. Joe Manchin's the smart one.
Because by being...
Since things are so close...
Simply being willing to go either way gives you all the power.
All the people who are not willing to even consider being flexible, they gave away all their power.
They don't have any.
So Manchin just said, wait a minute.
Are you telling me all I have to do is act reasonable in public and I can have all the power in the country?
Yup. Yup.
You just have to be a reasonable person who is willing to negotiate.
And willing to give, you know, the other side a little bit, if you get a little bit, just that.
Just a normal, normal person.
And you can run the whole country.
Just be normal. Because nobody else was trying.
Nobody else was trying to be normal.
In every other context in life, people negotiate.
You know, they're flexible.
They have to be. It's only Congress that people are not flexible.
So the one guy who said, hey, suppose I get flexible, now he runs the country.
Who was in charge of, let's say, climate policy for way too long?
It was Greta, wasn't it?
Greta Thunberg. Because her personality was so big that she made it hard to go against her.
So the people who were really running the world were Dr.
Birx. Am I right?
Because the leaders take their Take their instructions on the pandemic from the experts.
So it's Fauci and Birx, Greta Thunberg, Joe Manchin, maybe Kyrsten Sinema a little bit, but mostly Joe Manchin.
And then people like me.
People who just say stuff in public and some of it sticks.
That's it. The people running the country are absolutely not the ones you think are running the country.
Yeah, Elon Musk, etc.
You know, Elon Musk will have more to do with America's space program than the government will.
Am I wrong? Elon Musk is basically in charge of the American space policy, in effect.
I mean, he didn't sign up for it, but it worked out that way.
What about health care?
Probably Jeff Bezos.
Probably Jeff Bezos is in charge of it, right?
I'm being prompted on the locals platform there.
Yeah. So it turns out that America is this weird place where any one person can be in charge of an entire topic or multiple topics.
You just have to be smart enough to put yourself in that position.
And some of these people did.
It's a weird world where you can run the world or run one topic just as an individual.
You just have to see the opening and walk into it.
So what is this big-ish legislation that Joe Manchin finally got behind and caused to happen?
He did some good stuff.
And I think I have to call that out.
And it's not all good.
There's stuff you're not going to like.
There's stuff other people aren't going to like.
But that was the point, right?
The fact that you don't like part of it...
Is what makes it work.
That's why Joe Manchin was valuable.
He got something that not everybody loved, but worked, maybe.
And I think it's getting reasonably good reviews, is it not?
And it's not passed yet.
Anyway, but here's what it does.
It slashes the renewable energy tax credit by 80%.
So renewables will be relatively de-emphasized from where they were.
They'll still be emphasized, but not as much.
And it extends those tax credits to existing nuclear plants.
And it prohibits wind and solar development on federal land or in federal waters, unless oil and gas leases have also been issued.
So in other words, what Manchin said was, let's make it an all-energy program, not a some energy we love and some energy we don't.
Now, how smart is that?
Very, right?
In fact, isn't that actually the...
That used to be the Republican point of view, right?
Do all the energy as much as you can because the problem is running out.
The big problem is running out.
The big problem is not the climate.
That's the second problem.
So do the first one.
But do it smart and make sure that nuclear becomes a bigger part of the pie, which is what Manchin is trying to make happen.
Every part of this seems directionally correct.
You could argue about the specifics.
But directionally, this looks right, right?
Do I see any disagreement?
Moving money from green, well, not green, but let's call it wind and solar, to make sure that nuclear is equally supported, that just makes sense.
So good on Manchin for that.
They call it leveling the playing field for the energy choices.
That's good enough. He also got something in that, the bill, that would, quote, encourage reshoring of solar panel manufacturing.
So getting the manufacturing, maybe for windmills too?
I'm not sure. But getting some of the manufacturing for this green technology back from China and into the United States.
How good an idea is that?
Really good. Really good.
Yeah, solyndra, okay.
You can do it wrong.
There's a way to do anything wrong.
But we can't let China control our manufacturing.
We know we can't do that.
So I'm in favor of this.
There might be some bumps in the road with this, but...
So that's good.
And... But in terms of fighting against inflation, which is the name of the bill, apparently the experts are saying, yeah, it might help a little.
Yeah, a little bit. But it's not that big a deal for the economy.
It's actually not a big bill.
Apparently, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't even that big.
But maybe something good will come out of it.
So I'm going to say I feel a little bit optimistic about that.
Do you? Now, it's still not passed.
Anything could happen. But do you feel optimistic about the fact that this got negotiated?
A little bit. Those of you saying no, why is it too expensive?
Because the experts say it might actually bring down the deficit because there's a tax increase part of it, I guess.
So it actually is supposed to reduce inflation a little bit.
Because we need to stop spending money.
I think that's a perfectly good point of view.
But I would remind you that nobody knows how much debt we can handle.
I don't know why.
It feels like something we should be able to figure out, but nobody seems to know.
So I share your concern that too much debt is dangerous.
I just don't know what is too much.
And this seems to be part of reducing that debt, so...
I don't know. Nobody likes raising taxes, but on the other hand, it did work.
Didn't it work for Clinton?
Remind me, during the Clinton administration, Bill Clinton, did he not raise taxes and the economy did well?
Can somebody...
Give me a history lesson on that.
That's true, right? He raised taxes and still the economy did well.
That was because of the dot-com era, more than because of what he did, right?
Anyway, so we're not good at predicting the future about economics.
Well, the Matt Gaetz effect continues to spread, and I call that the be offended, hashtag be offended.
So hashtag beoffended is trending on Twitter, still.
So the background is that Matt Gaetz said some things about the protesters who were liberals, and he said basically that they were overweight and ugly.
And when challenged with that, he said, yeah, be offended.
Anyway, a Twitter user named Cornpop gives me this context.
Cornpop says, they call us...
I guess he means Republicans.
They call us Nazis, homophobic, Islamophobic, xenophobic, Bible-thumpers, murderers, misogynists, genocidal, racists, who aren't equal, blah, blah.
And then he goes on and he says, however, when we say they're fat, it's the end of the world.
Now... Now, to me, that's funny, but also offensive.
Would you agree? Now, I'm opposed.
I'm opposed to fat-shaming, right?
So we don't do that here.
I don't do fat-shaming, and the reason is I don't believe in free will.
I don't believe that there are people saying, I think I'd like to be 400 pounds.
I don't know. I think everybody wants to look beautiful and sexy.
It's just not the same challenge for everybody.
So I'm a little bit more forgiving than you are about that.
I do think that people should be encouraged to be healthy.
But there's some line that you don't want to cross.
However, this is another example where I think it's just funny.
If you're being called a Nazi, homophobic, genocidal, racist, and your only response is calling the other side fat, I think that's okay.
In context, if somebody's calling you names, that's okay.
Did any of you see my little dust-up on Twitter this morning with a user named Kyle?
Kyle decided to tweet at me and mention me in a tweet in a rather insulting way.
Rather aggressively insulting.
Kyle was surprised that I would read it and respond aggressively.
Kyle did not like to be insulted, and he called me out for insulting him.
To which I said, Kyle, you ignorant piece of shit.
What did you think would happen when you insulted me first?
Did you think I would just mute you or block you?
Sometimes I do that. But you're a free punch, buddy.
You're a free punch. If you insult me in public, I'm going to come at you as hard as I want to.
Just for fun. Just for fun.
You know, people watching say, oh, Scott's mad.
Sometimes. Not today.
Today was just for fun.
You insult me first, you're my fucking entertainment for the rest of the day.
Those are the rules. You insult me first in public, you're my fucking bitch for the rest of the day.
For free. Free entertainment.
And everybody else gets to watch.
So, I don't make the rules.
I don't make the rules.
And I generally don't...
I generally...
Well, do I? Maybe I insult people first.
It's Twitter, after all.
I'm sure I've done that. He has no free will, Kyle.
Well, neither do I. I can't help going after him.
Well, the race for Congress is tightening up.
You know, that big lead that a generic Republican had over a generic Democrat starting to close, according to Rasmussen polling.
So it's getting down to a five-point difference.
So I think it'd been up to a nine-point difference.
People preferring a generic Republican in the midterms.
But a little history lesson, it's not unusual for those gaps to completely close by election day.
So no matter how big that gap is now, nine or five points, by election day, it could be zero.
It could be zero.
So don't get too cocky.
About your big Republican lead, if you think that's a good thing?
Probably it's just going to go away toward the end.
Now, it doesn't mean the Republicans won't sweep, but it'll probably be a lot closer than you think.
So we'll see what happens.
And it is a lot of different polling organizations, so I wouldn't worry that the pollsters are all in on some kind of a plot or anything like that.
There are enough pollsters to guarantee that doesn't happen.
Well, were you waiting for the funniest story of the day?
I know you are. NBC News reports that the Biden administration has authorized completion of the Trump-funded U.S.-Mexico border wall in an open area of southern Arizona near Yuma where four wide gaps make it among the busiest corridors for illegal crossings.
Okay. Now, was there anybody you know who predicted that Biden would have to adopt Trump's policies that were working?
This guy? This guy?
Yeah. From the very beginning, I said, you know, he's going to have to just do what Trump did.
He's just going to be forced into it in the end.
So here's more in that direction.
But, given that the Democrats do not like to use the same names for things that other people do, we can't really call it Trump's Wall, can we, if Biden is building it?
The Democrats are not going to want to say, we decided to keep building Trump's Wall.
So, he's going to need some kind of name for it, right?
So, I was thinking, what could you call the wall besides Trump's Wall?
And luckily, there are a whole bunch of words that don't have any meaning that can be repurposed.
So find a word that used to mean something but no longer has any meaning whatsoever, and then you maybe repurpose that for Trump's wall.
For example, recession.
You could say that Biden is building a recession on the southern border.
Because recession used to mean something, but now it doesn't mean anything.
How about woman? We'll call it a woman.
Again, it doesn't have any specific definition, so it's available.
It's available. Well, to make things funnier, Mayor Bowser in Washington, D.C., seems to be concerned that her idea of becoming a sanctuary city was taken a little bit too seriously.
It turns out that when she said D.C. would be a sanctuary city and immigrants would be welcome there with open arms, she was not counting on the Texas governor busing her as many immigrants as she wanted, which is one of the funniest political plays of all time.
That is funny. Now, when it first happened, it just felt like a political grandstanding kind of thing.
But I didn't realize you would actually do it.
Did you? Did you think that Texas would actually just say, all right, I don't care how many buses it takes, that you're all going to Washington, D.C.? It's fucking brilliant.
It's brilliant. The other border states, you know, maybe Arizona should do it, should start shipping all the extra immigrants to Washington, D.C. and give them a phone.
Like, give them some incentive to go to Washington, D.C. Because I think it's Greg Gutfeld who says this the most.
I don't remember seeing anybody else say it as clearly.
Nobody's going to change anything until it comes to their doorstep.
When it comes to their doorstep, well, they'll get serious.
So Texas said, well, they're on our doorstep.
Let's see how you feel. We'll put them on your doorstep.
And then they actually did it.
So they've only got 4,000, but Bowser's already calling up the National Guard to help out.
Now, she's not crying uncle, and she's not saying, oh, we're not a sanctuary city anymore.
She's got to kind of go with that.
But she's going to have to eat it.
I mean, she's got to eat every challenge that comes with this because she signed up for it.
So there you go. All right, I have a question for you.
If you're a public figure and you talk about politics, so people like me are in that category, what should you do if you suspect a foreign intelligence agency is trying to connect with you?
Should I do anything about that?
Because every now and then I'll get a contact from somebody who's obviously not an American citizen and is trying a little too hard to be my friend.
You know what I mean? And it's nothing you've heard of, right?
But am I supposed to do something with that?
No, I'm not talking about, you know, on Twitter.
On Twitter everything's public.
Well, everything on that category is public.
So, but just generally speaking, should I...
But should you contact the FBI just because you have a vague suspicion?
If somebody says, is she hot?
That makes a difference.
No, and by the way, if you're thinking to yourself, if you're thinking to yourself watching this, that you might be the one I'm talking about, it's not you.
If you've contacted me recently on social media, don't worry, I'm not talking about you.
I don't think you're a foreign agent.
It's just something happened not too long ago that I looked at and I said, you know, this doesn't smell right.
Now, if you're a man, can the men confirm this?
Do you get a lot of social media traffic?
There's obviously somebody pretending to be a woman.
And it's going to be some scam.
You get a lot of those, right?
But they have a specific look to them.
You can identify those immediately.
But sometimes you get one that's going a little extra, like throwing in some politics and stuff.
I got questions.
I don't know. Fang Fang is a baldy chaser?
Maybe. But that's a serious question.
At what point should I actually get somebody else involved?
Now, I don't think there's any risk, because I'm not, you know, there's nobody contacting me that would influence me in any way.
I don't think. Can you screenshot and post on locals?
No, because, no, I can't do that.
Because it might be just somebody who's being nice.
Right? That's the problem.
It could be a completely friendly person who's being nice, or has some other ulterior motive, but it's not So I'm not going to end with somebody just for that.
But it's definitely a suspicious contact from Russia.
I'll give you a name. It's a Russian person who clearly looks like, I don't know that you would be contacting me the way you're contacting me without that.
But let me ask you more generally.
If you were Russia...
Would you not be trying to influence American influencers?
You would, wouldn't you?
Wouldn't that be the most basic thing you would do?
Is try to influence the influencers?
Because there are not that many of them.
There might be...
Well, give me a number.
How many public influencers are there that matter to Russia?
The top, you know, the ones that make a difference.
It's sort of a 20-80, 80-20 rule here.
It's not everybody who talks about it makes a difference.
There are only a small percentage of the people who talk about politics who can move the needle.
And I'm one of them.
Right. The FBI is not your friend.
That's a good point. Yeah, because I was thinking, you know, should I contact the FBI or something if I think I've been contacted by a foreign agent?
And somebody said, the FBI is not your friend.
You're absolutely right.
You're absolutely right.
And so that's the answer to my question.
Unfortunately, that's the answer to my question.
I would not contact the FBI because I don't trust them.
Think about that. How fucked up is that?
Like, that's an actual decision.
I just made a decision. That even if I suspected, I wouldn't contact the FBI because I don't trust them.
With anything. I don't trust them with anything.
I don't trust them to have my name.
I don't trust them to be looking into something on my behalf.
Nothing. I don't trust them with anything.
But I will say that the contact was a very casual one, and I'm not going to follow up on it.
So there's nothing to worry about if you're the FBI. It was a casual contact, and I won't be following up on it.
All right. I saw a study that says Republicans are more likely to be married than Democrats by a fairly large percentage.
Fairly large percentage.
That makes sense, doesn't it?
Now... But I wondered if this is really telling me what I think it is.
Because it's suggesting there's something about being married that's correlated with being Republican, which is probably true.
But... I haven't looked that up.
Republicans are older, right?
Am I right? Everybody seems like between 18 and 25 is probably at least 60% Democrat.
Yeah. So, I don't know if that's telling me something, but I don't think we can ignore the fact that the single versus married and younger versus older are pretty important elements.
More important than the Democrat versus Republican, probably.
Somehow we lose sight of that stuff.
So, how many of you know what Schrodinger's cat is?
I have an unusual audience, which is true, by the way.
This is probably the most educated audience.
Maybe anywhere. It's possible.
So most of you know what it is.
But for the... Is there anybody who doesn't know what it is?
You all say yes. You know, the general public doesn't know what a showrunner's cat is.
You know that, right? My God!
How do you all know about it?
I'm just seeing a few no's and all the rest of it.
Yes. You are a really educated group.
This is... I'm blown away.
I'm blown away. If you use that as a marker for how well-informed somebody is, that's like a really good one for finding out if somebody is...
You know, wrestled with some of the more interesting questions in science, for example.
So Schrodinger's cat is based on the quantum physics theories that something doesn't exist until it's observed or measured.
And Schrodinger said, that couldn't possibly be true.
I think I'm mischaracterizing Schrodinger, but this is the basic idea.
That can't be true.
If those equations are true, it would mean the following, and the following can't be true.
And the following was that you could take a cat, a living cat, put it in a box, seal the box so that nobody can hear it or see it and nobody knows what's happening with the cat.
Put it in the box, some kind of radioactive decaying thing that is unpredictable, totally random.
And then that thing, under some conditions, would trigger poison that kills the cat and under other conditions would not.
But if you're outside the box, you can never predict and never know What's happening inside the box.
And Schrodinger says the equations tell us that under those conditions the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.
And so he said the equations must be wrong because that's not possible.
Was it Einstein who said it?
Yeah. So I got...
Let me confess.
I got everything about that story wrong.
Can you confirm that?
Confirming the comments. I got most of that story wrong, but it's close.
It's like in the ballpark, right?
Maybe Einstein said it.
I think there's also some dispute about what Schrodinger really believed and what he meant by the experiment.
So there's a popular interpretation of what he meant, but I think the actual interpretation is more subtle.
However, that doesn't matter to my point.
What matters to my point is that Schrodinger was proven correct.
Simulation theory allows that cat to be both alive and dead at the same time.
So we actually do now have a theory that is the theory of everything.
You know how Einstein and the most important scientists have been looking forever for a theory that would tie together all the forces and it would explain why everything is everything and how it all fits together?
That's done. It's done.
It's called the simulation theory.
Here are some of the things that quantum physics couldn't figure out and was trying to reconcile.
How could it be that the cat could be both alive and dead at the same time in the box?
Simulation theory. If we're software, that's easy.
The software doesn't create your history until you need it.
So in simulation theory, you don't need a history of what the cat had done until somebody looks at it or measures it.
And then, at that point, you consolidate it into reality, or the perceived reality, and then it can build a history.
But in simulation theory, what you do today creates the past.
So the past doesn't always exist, except the past that was observed and measured.
That past does exist.
But anything that wasn't already observed and measured, what happens in the present creates that past.
So not only does the past create the future, that's confirmed, but in simulation theory, the present can also create the past.
Now, give me a little fact check on this because science isn't my strongest category.
Is it not true that the formulas about time and the arrow of time work in both directions and that science is a little puzzled by that?
How can the equations for time, I guess space-time, they seem to work in both directions?
Now, there's an argument that that's not true.
The arrow of time works in one direction.
But I'm pretty sure that the equations have been said to work in both directions, but that in a practical sense that didn't matter, that time only goes forward.
But simulation theory allows you to actually have it both ways.
Simulation theory would say, yeah, it makes total sense that the present can create the past and that the past can create the future.
Both of them would be true.
So, how about the speed of light?
Doesn't make any sense, does it?
How does it make sense there's a maximum speed?
How does that make sense?
Well, for software, it makes sense, because you have to put limits on what the artificial world can do, so you just put that limit on it.
Ah, speed of light. How does something have a beginning?
That doesn't make any sense.
Like everything is explained, everything, by the simulation.
So everybody who's looking for the grand, you know, formula that ties everything together, stop looking.
It's just software.
The reason you can't find it is that it exists in a different domain.
It exists in the domain of software.
It can make anything look possible.
Here's another one.
Bell's Theorem. So give me a fact check on this too.
Bell's theorem, I don't have the exact language for this, so fix my language as I go in the comments.
You take, is it a particle with a certain spin and you break it in half and separate the two particles by any amount of distance?
No, if you haven't measured the spin of a...
If you haven't measured the spin and then you separate them, Measuring one of them makes you know what the other one is no matter where it is.
So in other words, quantum intangible, yeah.
So it's spooky action at a distance.
So within science, we know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, except that the spooky action at a distance does.
So you have two things that can't both be true.
You can't have something affecting something across great distances instantly, because that means the signal from one to the other would travel faster than the speed of light.
But you can't.
So physics can't explain that.
You know it can? Simulation theory.
Because in simulation theory, there's no distance.
It's just software. So anything can happen at the same time.
But you might also have some rules to keep people in your universe, and maybe you add the speed of light as a distance.
So any kind of conflict that physics can't figure out, like how could this be true all the time, where the opposite's true also all the time?
Software. Software can make opposites work.
It can do anything. So all those little imperfections that we haven't figured out in science, probably just because we're a simulation.
All right. Bell's experiment proved Einstein right about non-locality, right?
So, in my view, every mystery in science is solved by the simulation and perfectly solved.
It doesn't leave anything left.
There's nothing left to explain.
It's all done. So, that doesn't mean simulation theory is true.
You're conflating software with theory.
Now, I'm using software more as an analogy.
So when I say software and that we're a simulation, it doesn't mean we're necessarily bits, because we don't know what some advanced civilization would use to program something.
But sort of conceptually, we're software.
Maybe not literally.
It's all solved by God, somebody says.
Yes.
Language easily generates paradoxes.
You are correct. A lot of things that look like paradoxes are probably the limitations of language.
That is exactly correct.
Physics can't be explained to people because when physicists try to explain their formulas, they try to turn it into words because that's what people understand.
But once you change the math into words, it actually becomes nonsense.
Bell's theorem. It's just nonsense in words.
All right. Software runs on hardware?
Well, in our universe it does.
I don't know what hardware means in some other reality.
But anyway, that was all a long, long way to get to this joke.
How did we end up with Schrodinger's president simultaneously alive and dead at the same time?
You know what I mean.
You know what I mean.
Biden is technically alive.
We'd all agree on that.
But have you ever seen any human being who seemed more technically dead and alive at the same time?
At the same time.
You have not. No.
Nobody's ever been as dead and alive at the same time.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, concludes some of the best live streaming you've ever seen in your young life.
And may I mention how good you look today?
Have you been exercising?
I think you have.
Here's a question for you.
What happens when I've assembled the smartest audience in politics?
Could get interesting.
We might already be there.
Name an audience that's smarter than this one.
I think Lex Friedman gets pretty smart people.
Tim Ferriss gets pretty smart people.
But I feel like this is among the smartest.
And the other things that you don't get on other content is that we collectively work on our thinking and knowledge as we go.
You see that, right?
You feel it? Don't you feel like we're sort of working through things together?
You see me change my opinions based on your feedback, etc.?
So I feel like we're like almost a collective mind that's involved in some kind of intentional self-improvement.
That's a good way to put it.
We are like a metamind, you know, the sum of us collectively working together are like a mind, and we do seem to be intentionally, and that's an important word here, intentionally involved in self-improvement.
You know, if you look at the people on the Locals platform, they've got over 200 micro-lessons they put there.
Two-minute lessons to give you, like, a permanent life skill.
There are people on YouTube, on the Locals, who have consumed over 200 lessons.
Each one individually could change your life.
I got a feeling that people are starting to develop superpowers over there.
For the benefit of the YouTube viewers, I'll read off some comments.
But on the Locals platform, how many of you have gotten a raise, a promotion, found love, got healthier because of following this content?
If you can see the comments, it's just like a complete string of people.
Oh, Lacey. You guys, talk among yourselves.
But look at the comments.
I don't know if you can see them.
Maybe they're backwards or something on your screen.
They're backwards than mine. I think the screen reverses them on yours.
But look at all the people who their lives were substantially changed without too much effort.
I mean, not too much effort to learn how to do it.
And in many cases, it doesn't take much effort to do it.
So I'm working on a book on reframing.
I'm going to be off-site for a few days, doing some serious writing.
And the reframing book, I think, will...
Here's how I'm thinking of it.
I'm thinking of my next book to be almost like Harry Potter spells.
Actually, simple sentences that are so powerful that they reprogram your mind.
And I'll give you my one example of a reframe and see if this works for you.
The thing about a reframe is it doesn't need to be true.
And once you accept that important part, then you can use them all.
If you think the reframe has to be true, you'll be limited.
A reframe is just a way to reprogram your brain to work better.
It doesn't have to be true.
And you can even know it's not true when you use it.
Let me give you an example. Have you ever heard, the customer is always right?
That's a reframe. The reframe is from, well, let's figure out who's right.
Are you right or am I right?
The normal way. The reframe is the customer is always right.
Now, here's the question. Is that true?
No! It's not even close to true.
It's a million miles from being true.
Is it useful?
Oh yeah. It's super useful.
Super useful. Because that one sentence almost changed, I don't know, the way business is done.
I mean, I think that one sentence changed business forever, the whole world.
Because if you act as though the customer is always right, you just get a better outcome.
Right? That's pretty well demonstrated.
If you argue with a customer, you're going to get an angry customer.
If you just treat them like they're right, you get a better outcome, and you'll get repeat business and everything else.
So, imagine if you had more of those.
More of those very simple statements, like the customer's always right, that you simultaneously know is wrong, but it gives you like a little guideline of how to act that really works.
How would you like to have a hundred of those?
You're not in sales, so that one doesn't matter to you.
But suppose they were about your health.
Here's another one. Alcohol is poison.
Now, when you first hear it, you say, well, that's sort of facile, and you're not really saying anything, blah, blah.
But I can tell you from experience, I don't know how many people have quit alcohol because of that sentence.
The people on the Locals platform tell me all the time that that one sentence...
Alcohol is poison because we think of it as entertainment, right?
You think of alcohol as a beverage and you think of it as entertainment.
And it is. It's also a beverage.
It's also entertainment.
But is it true that alcohol is poison?
Well, not technically, right?
But it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's true.
You just run that little loop in your head and it's easier to avoid it.
That's it. Just run the loop.
True or not, and it's easier to avoid it because avoiding poison is easy.
So all you're doing is connecting two concepts in a useful way.
Oh, poison and alcohol.
Oh, that would be useful to connect, though, so I don't get tempted by alcohol.
That's all it is. Now, again, so there's one that, you know, the customer is always right, completely changes your odds of success in business.
Most of you would agree with that statement.
It completely changes your odds of success.
Alcohol is poison completely changes your odds of reducing your drinking.
It doesn't help for an alcoholic, by the way.
If you're an alcoholic, you already know it's poison.
There's nothing you can do about that in terms of reframes.
There might be a reframe that does help you with alcoholism, but it's not that one.
That's not the one. Somebody said it is helpful, right?
You know, there's a lot of individual difference, but I wouldn't...
Let me put it this way. I wouldn't sell that reframe to you as helping with alcoholism, because I think that's an oversell.
I feel that would reduce my credibility if I made that claim.
I'm just going to say that people who like to have too many drinks on the weekend because it's fun, it really does help them cut back.
That's what they tell me.
Now again, imagine having a hundred of those.
Right? A hundred reframes that aren't true exactly, but they completely change how effective you are.
So that's what the book will be.
I'll have as many of those as I can.
All right. Light does not have a speed.
It is a perturbation of the ether.
All right. Well, if you'd like to go back to perturbating your ether...
