Episode 1844 Scott Adams: Twitter Has A Whistleblower It's Get Interesting. Plus How To Spot an NPC
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Twitter whistleblower, ex-head of security
Soros defends funding progressive district attorneys
California abortion referendum
Special Master for access to Trump documents
NPC Identification Guide
Alex Berenson's reply to my COVID deaths tweet
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the highlight of civilization.
I'm not sure if we're 13.7 billion years old in this universe or what.
Little bit of question about that lately.
But what I know for sure is that there won't be a finer day in your whole life.
Until tomorrow. Tomorrow's looking good.
But if you'd like to take it up a notch today, if you'd like to live tomorrow today, well, all you need is time traveling and a beverage.
So all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tankard, chels, or stein, a canteen, jug, or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go. Ah.
Yeah, that's it.
That's it. It's all coming together now.
Well, did any of you hear the news about Andrew Taint?
So Andrew Taint apparently has been banned now by TikTok and Facebook and Instagram and the phone book.
I think he's been banned from everything.
I just want to deal with a rumor that's going around.
Some of you think that I'm intentionally pronouncing his name with an N in it, but I can prove I'm not.
You just hear it that way. It's an audio illusion.
Would you like me to prove that I am pronouncing his name correctly?
All right? I can prove it.
Alexa, who is Andrew Taint?
According to Wikipedia, Henry Andrew Taint created an American-British internet personality and former professional kickboxer.
Following his kickboxing computer, Taint began offering Taint courses and membership.
There you go.
Aww. Aww.
Aww. Oh, YouTube too.
Aww. Well, you see, you can try it at home.
Just say to your own Alexa, and try to pronounce it correctly, the way I did.
Andrew Tate, T-A-T-E. If you do that, your digital devices will recognize it.
Now, I don't think it would have given me the correct answer if I had pronounced it incorrectly.
So you can tell now that your human ears are being fooled, but the digital device can hear accurately when I say Tate, T-A-T-E. Well, we've got a really good story here.
We've got this Twitter whistleblower.
But it's not any common whistleblower.
He was the ex-head of security for Twitter.
How would you like to be Twitter right now when your ex-head of security just absolutely pissed all over the company?
Because that's somebody who had access to some knowledge.
Well, so this guy, Peter, Peter Mudge, I guess that was his nickname, Mudge Zatko.
So he used to be the head of security, got fired for God knows what.
So keep in mind that he got terminated.
Whatever a disgruntled employee says about the company, how much should you believe it?
What is the credibility of a disgruntled employee?
It's zero. It's zero.
But this story is so fun, I'm going to pretend as though it's greater than zero.
Because I want it to be true.
Don't you want it to be true?
Can we all agree to suspend our critical thinking just for fun?
We're just going to pretend this guy actually has the goods.
Okay? Now, one of the things that he says is that there are too many people who have access to the deep information in Twitter.
And can tweak it.
Does that surprise you?
That there are too many people within Twitter who have access to being able to manipulate stuff?
Huh. That sounds like a problem.
And I think he's got an allegation that there might be a foreign agent working within Twitter.
He doesn't name names, but do you think there's a foreign agent working within Twitter?
Wouldn't it be more surprising if there were no foreign agents working on Twitter and the other social media networks?
Don't you think that foreign agents are trying to penetrate all of them?
And if they're not trying to penetrate all of them, why not?
It's the obvious thing to do.
So here the head of security is even thinking that Twitter may have been penetrated.
So this would explain one of my mysteries.
One of my mysteries about Twitter is I couldn't reconcile Jack Dorsey's involvement with what seemed apparently some kind of banning or shadow banning for conservatives.
Now, it could have been that it was just a subjective experience and there wasn't really any banning going on at all.
I'm actually open to that possibility.
Because it could be just an illusion.
If you think you're being banned, you see it everywhere.
But it's just the way the algorithm works.
Now, I don't think so.
I mean, it looks really real.
But be aware that you could be fooled.
So my assumption had been that if there was any of this chicanery and stuff going on, that Jack Dorsey would not be personally knowledgeable about it.
Because it didn't really make sense with who he is.
I guess his character and brand would not be consistent with Twitter doing something that sketchy and him knowing about it.
Now, if you haven't met him and you've never had any personal interactions, you might have a different opinion.
But if you have any personal interaction with him, he's just not the guy who would be doing that.
I just don't see it.
And I think he was actually genuinely curious about what was going on when people like me were complaining.
Because he actually connected me with somebody to look into it at one point at Twitter.
And I got the idea that he genuinely wasn't sure what was going on.
Now, if the security guy, ex-head of security at Twitter, is correct, which is a big F... There would be a number of different ways that people like me could be banned without Twitter management even being aware of it.
And that was always my best guess.
My best guess is that intelligence agents are manipulating the algorithms, directly or indirectly.
What I don't know is if it's ours or theirs.
Because maybe it would look the same.
If the CIA were in there trying to manipulate it, would it look any different than if Russia were trying to do it?
Because Russia might say bad things about the president, and if the Republican CIA might say bad things about the president, if it's Trump.
So I'm not sure you could tell the difference between our intelligence agency and a foreign one.
Do you remember I said that the only way I could understand Soros is if he's lost his critical thinking faculties?
And it's just an old man who doesn't know what's going on, and the people below him, who he's entrusted to give away his money, are feeding him a bunch of bullshit about the benefits of the money that they're spending.
Because what he knows about the benefits of the money he's donating comes from the people he paid to donate it, right?
They're the ones who say, oh, it worked out great.
You wouldn't believe how well that worked out.
And you should give me some more money to donate, of which I'll keep some of it, because that's what I get paid for.
So, there's a new, I guess, in the Wall Street Journal, in which Soros is defending his funding of these progressive DAs, who are letting people out of prison, etc., by showing statistics that the red states don't do any better than the blue states.
You know what's wrong with that, right?
Does everybody...
Aware enough to know what's wrong with that?
So he says that the red states and the blue states are doing about the same in terms of crime, therefore there's no problem with his progressive DAs.
Now he's saying that in public and in writing.
Yeah, it's not the state, it's the city.
If the city is run by a Democrat, you get a Democrat city.
Right? It's not the state level, because the state level doesn't have police.
I mean, in the sense that we're talking about it.
So if you see Soros doing a data analysis that even, I'd say, a large percentage of this audience knew it was not valid, you didn't have to do any research, right?
As soon as you heard it was a state-level analysis, you said to yourself, well, that's not right.
Right? So this, again, is more evidence that maybe Soros is just operating in a degraded mental capacity.
I don't know how much of the opinion piece he wrote himself.
I'm thinking not all of it, but I feel as if people are even putting words into his mouth now to defend their theft.
So let me tell you what it looks like.
So this will not be an accusation of fact.
It would be pattern recognition.
The pattern I see is an elderly person being abused.
By people he trusts.
The people he trusts are giving away his money according to guidelines which he probably established.
But they're telling him that it's working when it's not.
And he can't tell the difference.
And then they're telling him to defend their work by writing a, probably, here I'm speculating, by writing an opinion piece for him that he doesn't understand And then having him sign it and say, oh yeah, that was my opinion.
Those state-level databases are telling us what we need.
It looks like incompetence, doesn't it?
Just old age-based incompetence?
Because we can be fairly sure that he was smart at one point.
Right? Is there anybody who says he was always dumb?
I mean, I don't think it was luck that made him the money he made.
So I feel like the best hypothesis for Soros is not evil, but actual decline, mental decline.
And then some people below him who are skimming off some money and making it look like they're doing a good job.
That's what it looks like.
So if I had to put a large bet on it, I'd say, hmm, my bet's on mental incompetence.
That's what I think. All right.
But I could be wrong.
California's having an abortion referendum.
It looks like two-thirds of Californians are in favor of it, or in favor of some kind of abortion being legal.
So it looks like that'll pass.
Made me wonder how many states are going to pass abortion laws.
And is it around a quarter or a third of the states are against abortion rights?
It's about that, right?
It's about 25%.
So in this case, I don't think that 25% applies.
But what do you think about the theory that the states are going to sort it out and everybody's going to get what they want eventually?
Now, in the short run, it's really hard to move.
It's hard to relocate to a state where you will have more rights if that's what you want.
Don't you think that women of reproductive age are likely to move away from those states?
Not all of them. Because there are plenty of people who are against abortion and would have the baby.
But don't you think a lot of people are just going to move?
Because I don't see anybody moving out of California because of abortion.
Because it's just an option.
It doesn't have to apply to you.
If you don't want one, don't get one.
So I don't see anybody leaving California.
But I do see, I can imagine...
Anybody who's, let's say, Louisiana, if I were a 20-something woman and I was healthy and I could get pregnant, I don't think, and let's say, and I was in favor of abortion, I'm pretty sure I would move.
Because I don't think I would want to take the chance of having to go get medical care in another state.
Now, again, I'm not giving you...
If you think you're hearing my opinion on abortion, I don't give that.
I think women need to work out what should be legal and what shouldn't be.
I just take a pass on that.
Let the women figure it out.
I'll support you, whatever you come up with.
And it'll be different by state, apparently.
Well, let's keep an eye on this.
In the short run, women who wanted abortion are losing a lot by the Roe vs.
Wade. In the long run, I wonder if it'll all mostly sort itself out.
Mostly. I don't know.
We'll see. But I worry about those states surviving that are going to be driving away young people.
Are there some states that will just drive away their young people and therefore be doomed?
Maybe. Now, Elon Musk says that the greatest risk to the world is...
What? What does Elon Musk say is the biggest risk to civilization?
It's a collapse of birthrate.
Apparently, the United States has been below replacement for decades.
But we don't notice it because of immigration.
But here's what I wonder.
Let's say it's true that civilized countries all dip below the replacement rate.
In other words, every two people who get married are not creating two extra kids or more.
They're creating fewer than two.
And eventually your economy will collapse because then you end up with a bunch of old people and not enough young people working.
So China's got a big problem there.
What do you think will happen with America?
The only thing that will save America, it's not the only thing, but the thing that's obvious would be immigration.
If America does the Trump, let's say the Trump approach, in which it carefully selects who it wants to let in, And probably would favor younger people.
I would imagine. I would think so.
Wouldn't we be in the best position relative to other countries?
Because China's not going to open up immigration, right?
So they've got a real problem.
We could just open our border And let's say we vet people for crime and whatever else.
But if we just opened our borders, not just southern borders, but open our borders to, you know, let's say any country that's got a good education system, and we can just let people in, don't we win?
Because I would think we would be replacing our young people with immigrants.
They would be leaving the places where, and maybe leaving them to collapse, But it seems like we'll be okay, we being the United States, and any country that can attract immigrants.
So I think if you can attract immigrants, you win, and if you can't, you're in trouble.
So China's in trouble.
Because their system doesn't allow them to bring in immigrants at the rate they need.
Same with Japan. Japan's got the same problem.
They can't bring in infinite immigrants.
So let me test this on you.
I'm going to make a confession here.
When I was working in my corporate job, we were often asked to sign corporate documents saying that we had learned something or we understood something to be true about safety or something like that.
One of the things I was asked to sign was a statement that said that as an employee of the company, I understood that diversity was good.
And I refused to sign it.
Not because I don't like diversity, Just because I didn't have any data to support that opinion.
I thought, well, compared to what?
Is Switzerland having a big problem because people look alike?
Actually, Switzerland is more diverse than you think.
I thought, well, compared to what?
So again, I wasn't making a social comment.
It was just a data comment.
Why would I sign something that says I'm sure about it when there's no data one way or the other?
So I refused. Did I get fired?
No, because nobody could argue that the data existed.
So I just said, if you have some data, I'm happy to look at it.
If it looks good to me, I'll sign it.
If you don't have any data, why am I signing that I know something that's unknown?
All right, now I revise that.
So that was my opinion, I don't know, 25 years ago.
Here's my current opinion.
We, America, would be totally screwed without diversity at this point.
Because we have a country that can allow in people from anywhere.
That's our operating system.
Our operating system is, you can come in from anywhere.
We would like you to have skills and to be able to add to the country.
People have different opinions about how strict you should be about vetting them for their skills.
Well, everybody would prefer people who can take care of themselves, all things being equal.
And so I would argue that diversity as a strategic advantage has been proven to my satisfaction.
So I would say that the statement, diversity is an advantage, especially when populations are under risk of collapse, I feel like, from a risk-reward standpoint, it's a proven statement now.
So I would say I don't need any data.
We have a strategy that can work, replacing people with immigrants, whereas China has a strategy that nobody can see how that could work.
The numbers don't work.
So if you're just looking at it rationally, I'd say, okay, point made.
Diversity in the United States became our...
It became a superpower.
Now, if you said...
Was I smart enough to see that coming?
The answer is no. No, I did not see that coming.
But it's here. Somebody says, we're not strong because of diversity.
We're strong because of a common American culture.
That's probably a better...
That's a fairer way to say it.
But in the specific sense of replacing young people, it works.
All right? We can do it and China can't.
That's all I'm saying. We can do it.
China doesn't have that option because they don't deal with diversity.
To me, that feels like a slam dunk positive for diversity.
And again, I was surprised.
I didn't see it coming.
All right. So I guess Trump is asking for a, what do they call it, a special master?
Yeah, a special master to independently review any evidence that came out of the Mar-a-Lago raid.
And I guess this special master would have top clearance to see all the secret stuff.
Now, what do you think of that strategy?
Why would Trump ask for a special master?
I think the idea is to keep Schiff and those people away from the data, right?
Because otherwise, Schiff is going to go in the SCIF and say, oh yeah, there's those nuclear secrets, and there's your love letter to Putin, and they won't exist.
But if you get a special master, maybe if it's somebody people trust, maybe that special master will say, I looked at everything, and there doesn't seem to be a problem here.
Everybody relax. So I think it's a good play.
So I think it's a good play by Trump to ask for a special master.
Because even if he doesn't get one, he's now on record saying that any other system would look corrupt.
Because it would. And now you're primed to see anything except a special master as being below the level of credibility that you would look for in your government.
So it's a good way to prime you even if he doesn't get his special master.
And then I see a lot of Democrats are salivating because the New York Times reported that there are about 300 classified documents.
Whoa! Whoa!
Whoa! When you thought there were only maybe three or four classified documents, maybe you weren't worried.
But now there's 300. Whoa!
Whoa! Does that mean anything?
Is that any news at all, that there are 300?
If you know that the government routinely overclassifies things, what does the number 300 tell you about the importance of the materials?
Nothing. Nothing.
It's no information at all.
If you start with the assumption that the government overclassifies like crazy, just to play it safe, then if you have got 300 documents that say classified, out of how many?
Is that 300 out of 3,000?
Because there are boxes and boxes.
There must be thousands of documents.
Let's say there are 10,000 documents.
If you had 10,000 documents and 300 of them were overclassified, probably, as classified, does that tell you anything about how dangerous this material is?
Not really. It's no information at all, but the Democrats are treating it like the walls are closing in.
Ooh, that Trump! There's 300 of them now.
300! Now he's in trouble.
All right. This next topic will be a little problematic for some of you, a little painful.
And I'm going to start out by telling you that I created an NPC identification guide.
So this is how you can identify an NPC. Now, if you're new to this topic, it doesn't literally mean they're NPCs, and it doesn't literally necessarily mean we're living in a simulation like a game.
What I do know is that there are a group of people who say the most predictable things in every situation.
So I call them NPCs because they can only say predictable things.
So here's a further guide on how to get them.
An NPC, on Twitter anyway, would attack the person but not the point.
So my typical comment this morning on Twitter is, yes, Scott is waking up.
The typical comment on Twitter about me today is, I liked this guy's cartoons once, but why is he such an idiot?
And that's it.
Why am I such an idiot?
Well, did I say something wrong?
And what was it?
What do you disagree with?
So you'll see a lot of those.
If somebody goes after the person, when it would be just as easy to attack the point, probably an NPC. Here are some more ways to identify an NPC. An NPC imagines they can read minds and see your motives.
So today, a whole bunch of people read my mind and told me in public what I was thinking and feeling.
None of them were right, but...
None of them were embarrassed by pretending to know my inner thoughts.
That wasn't embarrassing to them.
Those are NPCs.
Real people with, like, functioning brains know they can't know what other people are thinking.
You don't know what I'm afraid of.
You don't know what my motives are.
Almost ever. Even when you think you do.
Even if I admit it, you probably don't.
Alright, here's some more.
NPCs believe that history repeats.
So if they've seen something in the past that happened, that's a pretty good indication that that's going to happen again.
There's nothing like that in the real world.
History doesn't repeat.
It can't. Because everything's changed.
If it repeats, it would be the biggest coincidence in the world.
Now, surely there are red flags that history can show you.
History can certainly say, whoa, we've seen this before.
You'd better take a closer look.
It can do that for sure.
So if you're saying it flags things, I'm with you completely.
Oh yeah, it flags things.
Wait a minute. This looks a little like the Holocaust.
Alright, that's good. It's good if you see a pattern developing, you can flag it.
Where things go wrong is to believe it's some kind of reliable guide.
It's not a reliable guide.
Ever. Never.
Sometimes they get you right, but that would be true of guessing in general.
Sometimes you say, oh, history repeats, here it comes again, and sure enough, there it is.
But that's because of luck.
It's not because you could predict based on that different thing that happened in the past that just sort of reminds you of it.
Yeah, I get it. History rhymes.
I saw it a million times.
All right. Another sign of an NPC would be somebody who believes that on a scientific question, they could do their own research.
Well, you can do your own research, but to imagine that the experts weren't sort of trying to do that themselves, and you got a different answer than the consensus of experts, you could be right.
But how would you know?
Would you bet on yourself?
If you were the lone, rogue person who did your own research and got the different answer, what are the odds that you're right?
Well, you don't know.
You really don't know.
Now, if you said to me, Scott, sometimes an ordinary person can disagree with one ordinary expert and prevail, I would say that's actually pretty common.
I've had that experience many times, where I disagreed with an expert and I was right, and I'm not an expert.
Many, many times.
So it works on an individual basis.
Where it works much less well is when it's you against the entire field of experts all over the world.
Then the experts all over the world might have an edge.
But if it's you plus one expert on one question, you could know more on one question than an expert.
That wouldn't be that unusual.
All right. So if you believe that doing your own research gets you to clarity and certainty, I would say that you're someone who doesn't understand much about research or data.
But a lot of people are in that category, so they think that they can do their own research.
You'd be an NPC if you believed that you saw a chart on Twitter and that it was real and that it was useful.
There's nothing that's a chart on Twitter that's useful or credible.
It might be true.
It might be true.
You might even be interpreting it correctly.
But you don't know.
You just don't know.
It would be luck if it were true and you got it correctly.
There's a group of people who imagine they can predict the unknowable.
Do you know what will happen in five years for anything?
You know, much less a medical thing.
We don't know what will happen with anything in five years.
So if you think you know what's going to happen with a medical thing in five years, well, maybe.
But we're pretty much wrong about everything.
So if you made a decision based on knowing what would happen in five years, well, good luck with that.
NPCs also like to change the definition of words and then be done.
Well, I changed the definition of that word and now I'm done.
No, that's not reasoning.
That's not data. That's not an argument.
You just changed a word.
That's not anything. And here's my best one.
An NPC is skeptical of official data.
Now you're saying to yourself, wait a minute, I'm skeptical of official data.
Right. You should be.
So am I. So, like you, I am skeptical of official data, like NPCs.
So this would be something we all have in common.
NPCs, me, you, we're all skeptical of official data.
But I'm more skeptical than most people, because I also don't trust an engineered virus.
So there are a lot of people arguing with me today.
Who didn't trust a vaccine that had not been sufficiently tested and then turned out not to stop transmission.
So, is that reasonable?
Is it reasonable to not trust a vaccine that hasn't been tested long enough and has never been done before?
Well, why would you trust that?
No, no, it's not reasonable to trust something like that.
But why would you trust the alternative either?
Why would you trust an engineered virus would only have a short-term effect on you?
Why would you trust that?
So I'm more skeptical than the skeptics, but the skeptics believe I'm less skeptical because they don't understand what more skeptical looks like.
More skeptical says, I don't know anything about that virus, but that's no normal virus.
We all agree with that, right?
Would you agree with those two statements?
I don't know anything about this virus, roughly speaking.
And it's an engineered virus.
So that makes the unknowns way higher, I would think.
It's from a bat, somebody says.
It's from a bat. Yeah, I think the bat hypothesis, I'm going to rule out.
I suppose anything's possible, but when you hear the experts talking about it, it would be pretty unlikely that it came from an animal.
It may have come from an animal before it got modified.
Anyway, so those are the NPC identifiers.
And then the biggest difference between what I thought about the pandemic and what other people thought is that I included all of the risks.
The people who disagree with me generally just ignore one of the biggest risks.
Could be a different one.
But there's nobody, I don't believe there's anybody who's looked at all the risks, I mean just the categories, I'm not even talking about a deep dive, who disagrees with me.
I think everybody who is skeptical of both the virus and the vaccination ends up where I did.
All right. Our health system can take care of most illnesses versus 100 years ago.
True. True.
Now, most of the people who disagree with me also have a sense that I said something I didn't say.
But have I ever mentioned that every time I think I'm just observing the news, I get dragged into it, and then suddenly I'm the story?
It's like, no, I just want to talk about the news.
I don't want to be the news.
So that's the Joe Rogan and Bill Maher problem.
They want to talk about the news, and then they become the news.
Forgetting, as I did, that Alex Berenson was back on Twitter, he weighed in on one of my tweets.
Let me tell you how that went.
By the way, I was testing yesterday some software to do interviews.
Maybe I'll invite him to do a test of the technology.
here's how that went.
Where am I?
Oh, so we're talking about excess deaths after the pandemic.
So I tweeted yesterday or the day before, is there any credible reporting on excess deaths?
Because I keep seeing these reports that the number of people dying above what was expected might be an indication that the vaccinations are killing people.
And then other people say, no, it's the delayed healthcare, or it's people getting fat, or it's whatever.
So the topic is excess deaths.
Now, if you were Alex Berenson, what would prove you right all along?
If you're Alex Berenson, the thing that would sort of prove that he had been right since the start would be if the excess deaths are high, they're everywhere that the vaccination happened, which he points out that is mostly in places where the mRNA vaccination happened, there are these reported excess deaths.
And... So Alex Berenson said in my reply to my tweet in which I asked if anybody has good excess death data, he said, yes, the excess deaths are real and happening in all or nearly all of the mRNA vaccinated countries.
Wow. If that's true, what Alex Berenson is saying, that the excess deaths are happening in almost all of the mRNA vaccinated countries, That's a pretty big red flag, isn't it?
Big red flag? Would you agree?
Big red flag. Let's keep going.
And he says people have offered several explanations, right?
So he's open to the fact that there's more than one explanation and that it's not settled yet.
So, so far we're on the same page.
It's not yet settled.
But Alex says, but to my mind, the most obvious explanation for the excess deaths is that the shots are implicated.
So he thinks that would be the most credible.
So I responded to him by saying, historically speaking, wouldn't the most obvious explanation of shocking data, and it wouldn't matter what topic you were on, if there's some new shocking data, I said, Isn't the most obvious explanation that the data is wrong?
That's the most obvious explanation for everything.
Forget about the pandemic.
You just get a new shocking study on anything.
What's the most obvious explanation of why the new data is different from all the other data?
The most obvious reason is that the data's wrong.
So that's what I tweeted.
I said, historically speaking, the most obvious explanation of shocking data is that the data's wrong.
And I said, that's 95% of what we see when data is shocking us.
Now, Alex came back and mocked me in public for that.
He mocked me, and he said, denial.
It's not just a river in Egypt.
Good one, Alex.
Good one. Have you ever heard of that one before?
Because there's a river in Egypt called the Nile, and then this word denial sounds like the Nile a little bit.
And so he's cleverly...
I think this is his own thing.
He probably came up with this. It's very good.
I think this might last.
You might hear this one again.
Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt.
Pretty good. It's a strong play.
Strong play. Now, I got a little worried when I read that because I'm like, oh shit, he's good.
This guy's got a lot of game.
He came up with a saying that I think is going to last the ages.
And he hasn't even gotten to his point yet.
All right, let's get to the point. He goes, here's Scott Adams speculating the...
Well, I'm going to read it in the attitude that I feel like he was thinking.
I don't know, but I feel like if he had been saying it, it would have sounded a little like this instead of writing it.
Here's Scott Adams speculating the reason mortality is spiking worldwide in the mRNA countries is that...
advanced nations suddenly forgot how to count deaths.
There are several possibilities for what's happening, he allows.
That isn't one.
So the one we're going to rule out, that apparently I ruled in because of my denial, which is also a river in Egypt, if you didn't know that.
Well, my denial is really blazingly obvious here, because here I am denying that data from experts could be...
Well, actually, I was skeptical that data from the experts is accurate.
Huh. But I'm talking to Alex Berenson.
What is Alex Berenson most famous for?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's most famous for being skeptical about data.
So when I'm skeptical about data, Alex Berenson says, come on.
That's a little bit of denial.
There's your river in Egypt.
But when he's skeptical about data, it's just good reasoning.
But, okay, I have to be fair.
I am misrepresenting his argument.
I am misrepresenting his argument.
His argument is that the data in all the countries is being counted the same way it's always been counted.
Oh. Okay, that's a good point, isn't it?
Ouch. Oh, shit.
I thought I was arguing about the credibility of the analysis, but he's just saying, if they counted it the same way before as they're counting it now, and you got all these excess deaths, even if they were counting it slightly wrong, I'm assuming this is his argument, even if they're counting it slightly wrong, They're using the same method.
So something's going on.
Shit. That's a good point, isn't it?
So, he totally nailed me in public.
I'm defeated.
Man. Have you ever seen me this completely slapped down in public?
It's kind of humiliating, really.
It hurts. It's painful.
It's painful, really.
So about 10 minutes later, somebody tweeted a long thread from somebody who seemed very capable, explaining that the data in every country had, in fact, been misinterpreted.
And then he showed his work.
Turns out, if you adjust the data for age and demographic shifts over the recent years, The baseline's exactly where it was.
There are no excess deaths.
The exception is England because their emergency care system fell apart.
That's right. So what about my 95% estimate that it's the data that's wrong?
The data was wrong.
Now, do I trust the new analysis that says if you properly look at the data, there's no problem?
Oh, we'll get to the insurance actuaries.
How about I take care of the insurance actuaries with three words?
Follow the money.
What does the insurance company want you to believe about the risks?
They want you to think there's big risks because they're charging you more because there's big risks.
So if the insurance companies tell you that there's a bigger risk of dying, do you believe them?
If you believe that, that's the least credible thing that could ever be in the world.
Somebody who is literally paid For how much risk there is, doing their own internal analysis, not showing you the data.
It's proprietary, but trust us.
We looked at this data and, wow, big risk.
Now, in the long run, other insurance companies, once they realize that this is a phantom and it's not real, they can lower their prices.
And for the same product, same insurance, and they would get more of the business.
So eventually, if these estimates are not real, eventually they'll be driven out of the pricing over time.
But what happens on day one?
Let me take you to the meeting of the insurance companies.
All right? We're all in the meeting.
All right, does anybody have any data that shows what's happening?
Yes? Actuarial? Tell me.
Well, I have some preliminary data that looks like the risks are higher, but I don't know if this will hold true.
Maybe we're looking at it wrong.
This could be wrong, but preliminarily it looks like maybe there's more risks.
Boss says, we're going with that.
We're going with that.
Because we can charge more.
If we're wrong and we charge more, we just made more money.
If we're wrong the other way, we lose money.
So of course you're going to say there's a risk.
Of course you're going to say it's big.
And of course you're going to raise your rates in the short run.
Now let's say you're a competing company, and you just heard that your competitor checked and says, oh, there's more risk, and they raised their rates.
What are you going to do? Are you going to say on day one, on day one, this is the important part, on day one, are you going to say, no, our data doesn't look like that.
We're going to go low because we don't see that risk and we'll out-compete you by selling more insurance.
Nope. On day one, everybody says, somebody's saying there's more risk?
Does it sound credible?
Well, if they're saying it, maybe we should take a look at our numbers, too, until we say it.
Because we can make more money if we agree with them than if we disagree in the short run.
In the long run, clarity will drive the price down, if there's a reason to drive it down.
So, what was that about?
Anyway, so the bottom line is that there is one very strong analysis, in my opinion, I can't tell who's right or wrong on these deep dives and experts I've never met and all that, so I don't know who's right, but I will say that there's a strong analysis that sounds pretty solid, that there is no excess mortality.
So, My 95% estimate that the problem is usually the data probably is going to work out this time as well.
Let me tell you where I learned that trick.
I used to work in a technology laboratory at the phone company, local phone company.
And my job, along with my coworkers, was connecting various pieces of brand new technology to see if it all operated with our network.
Because lots of times it would be like a new phone or something and it just didn't work.
So we've been connecting various devices, computers and processors and modems and things together.
And when it didn't work, what did you look at first?
Well, you looked at the software, the compatibility, you made sure your cables were connected, you rebooted, you did all those things.
Do you know what turned out to be the problem usually?
Actually, most, let's say the plurality, the greatest number of problems.
Do you know what it was? Bad cables.
Not the wrong cable, but a physical cable that has no moving parts, Would just stop working.
And it would never work again.
And never figured out why.
Yeah, so even plugging and unplugging didn't make any difference in this context.
And I never figured out why.
But the only thing I do know is that the thing that my brain said should be the least likely problem was the most likely problem.
But my brain could never understand why that was the most likely problem.
And it took a long time to check the cable first.
But by the time I had enough experience, I would check the cable first.
And, you know, and I was happy that I did that, because the number of times that was a problem was amazing.
Yeah, they're metal wires.
You know, I understand they're stressed.
But logically, you don't think that you've manipulated them enough.
And some of them were new and didn't work.
I mean, I had brand new cables that didn't work.
So... Your common sense of what is likely to be true is not very reliable.
And so I say, Alex Berenson's point that all of the industrialized countries can't all be bad at counting their debt.
Logically? That sounds pretty good, doesn't it?
That they can't all be bad at counting their debt?
But that's not exactly what's the problem.
The problem is not that they counted them, it's the people who analyzed that count after the fact forgot to adjust for demographics and age.
If you don't do that, it doesn't matter if the data is correct, you're going to get the wrong answer either way.
So, do you think I should ask Alex Berenson to come on and talk to him?
Because I feel like the conversation would go this way.
I feel like it'd be a waste of time, and here's why.
If I bring him on, he'll say, the blah, blah, blah study shows I'm right.
And then what am I going to do?
Where does the interview go from there?
There's a new study, and it shows I'm right about everything.
That's the end of the conversation.
I haven't seen the study.
And if I saw it, I wouldn't know if it were true.
So I don't think there's any place to go with that conversation.
Is there? You are not at all well.
Is that for me? Yeah, it's like interviewing one expert.
Exactly. What would be useful would be to have somebody who is opposite in opinions from Alex Berenson, but also an expert, Alex Berenson brings his expert, data expert.
The other expert brings another data expert.
And then, you know, I host a debate in which there's lots of time.
so you can get through it.
Why would you trust a potential study but not data?
Right. So it all could be wrong.
Look into euthanasia numbers.
Well, again, there's no difference in the excess deaths.
So there's nothing to look into beyond that.
Dropping the Stalin-level facts, what about that?
She's quite the MILF. The CDC director.
Does anybody else have a crush on the CDC director?
Walensky? That's funny.
I actually got attacked by a literal Karen the other day on social media.
I forget what it was.
Somebody came after me for something.
It was actually Karen.
Pharaoh Zen. Could everybody say hi to Pharaoh Zen over on YouTube?
Pharaoh Zen, I'm glad you finally made it.
Thank God.
He asked me to recognize him, and I thought, it's about time.
Do you know how many times we've been on here without saying hi to Ferrozen?
I mean, it's time.
It's time. Would I want to get LASIK eye surgery?
I've looked into it. I'm not a candidate.
My eye structure doesn't work for them.
But I would otherwise.
Who should you trust?
All right, so that's all I've got for now.
Hypnotists are more susceptible to hypnotism.
Wake up, Scott!
Actually, that's not true.
Hypnotists are not more susceptible to hypnosis.
It's probably exactly the same.
Oh, how many more of you have listened to my video on how to cure anxiety and got some good results?
Anybody else listen to it and find themselves getting better?
All right.
All right, so more people.
Have you learned what canvassing an election is yet?
And that's relevant to...
relevant to what?
I'm going to get rid of Abba for asking the same question over and over.
Goodbye.
All right.
Well, it's video 791.
Is that what it is? It's video 791.
But if you want to see the excerpt that's relevant, the one about anxiety, you want to see that on my Twitter feed, and it's the pinned tweet.
So go to my Twitter feed.
It's the top one today.
All right. Have I tried Delta 8?
What the hell is that? Oh yeah, Elon Musk has subpoenaed Jack Dorsey.
Oh, the other thing that the Twitter whistleblower said is that Twitter doesn't have any mechanism for knowing how many bots they have.
They don't have the resources to know that.
That's going to be interesting.
LAUGHTER What was I wrong about the vax?
Somebody says I was wrong about the vax.
Name one thing that I was wrong about.
Can you? I want to see if they can do this on YouTube.
Name one thing I was wrong about.
You were wrong about the virus?
No, but what was I wrong about?
Let's see.
No, but what was I wrong about?
Yeah, nothing. No, wasn't wrong about masks.
All right. Well, no more Vax talk, I agree.
I'm not interested in the topic anymore.
I'm very interested in the cognitive dissonance, because it's the only thing where we had completely different predictions, but we all said we were right, including me.
Everybody had a wildly different idea of what was going to happen, and then something happened, and everybody said, well, that's exactly what I said was going to happen.
There it is. That's exactly what I predicted.
Everybody.
No matter what you predicted, you're pretty sure you got this one right.
Apply your actuarial meeting example to Twitter bot estimates.
Yeah. It's going to be the same thing.
Twitter's going to say, well, we don't know how many, but if you don't know how many, don't guess on the high side.
If you don't know, use your low estimate.
Your husband loves me?
Well, why can't he tell me that?
Super straight pure blood ultra mega for the win.
All right. I'm into Twitter troll tailspin.
You know, every now and then I... I... Let's say I mix it up with the trolls.
But I do it intentionally because I'm bored or there's some point I want to make.
But I'm over it.
Oh, I'm way off of Prisoner Island.
Um... The Pope of Dope is back.
All right. I don't have anything else to say.
So instead of just babbling, I'm going to end it here.
And I will talk to you tomorrow when the news will be exciting again.
