Episode 1847 Scott Adams: Redacted Affidavits, Rogan Talks to Zuckerberg, Student Loan Forgiveness
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
2 HOAXES I fell for this week
Jarrod Kushner on lives saved by vax program
FBI nudged Facebook to suppress Hunter laptop?
Student loan forgiveness
Redacted affidavit for Mar-a-Lago raid
The most common way people describe me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 another highlight of the universe.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
There's never been anything better.
You could search the entire world and, well, you're not going to find anything better.
Could it be even better than better?
Yes, there is a level above better.
It's called Better Better, and all you need to get there is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine at the end of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
Really everything. No?
You're thinking there's an exception?
Nope. Everything.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
Go. That came directly from heaven.
Pretty sure. Well, what's going on with you today?
So, I had a weird day yesterday.
How many of you have had a day like this?
I woke up this morning and I realized that I had zero human contact yesterday.
I talked to people by phone and talked to people by messaging.
I did a live stream. I saw people.
I had zero conversations in person with a human being.
Yesterday. The whole day.
Now, I had some plans that fell through, which is why.
I mean, it wasn't a normal situation.
But today I have no plans.
So today I would expect I'll probably have no human contact.
And then this weekend, as far as I know, no human contact.
In fact, I only have one thing on my calendar for the rest of my life.
Would you like to know what it is?
Literally, there's only one thing on my calendar for the rest of my life.
It's the Russell Brand interview.
So, if things go well, I'll be talking to him on Wednesday, August 31st.
And, you know what?
It's all you need.
Yeah, it's all you need.
You don't really need much human contact.
You just need a video of me talking to Russell Brand, and you're going to get that.
Now, I assume that's recorded, so I don't know when it actually runs.
I'm noticing his production values keep going up.
I assume it's...
I believe it is recorded.
I'll let you know if it's not.
I have fallen for possibly two hoaxes this week alone.
Let's see if you fell for these.
And by the way, I don't know if these are hoaxes.
So there are two things that I thought were true-ish that other people say are hoaxes.
Let's see if you can confirm that they're hoaxes.
Number one, did you see a video, it's on Twitter, of a young woman who purports to have used AI to have created a deepfake that looks really, really real.
And then...
But apparently it's a hoax.
And the hoax is it's actually just a real person.
So it's a real person doing a deep fake of a deep fake, which is pretty clever.
Totally fell for it.
Now, it's a weird hoax because it's so close to something that can actually be done that, I don't know, I like a hoax when it's something that definitely can't be done.
You know, something impossible and somebody believes it.
But if it's this close to something that could actually be done in the real world, it's interesting.
But it's not quite a hoax.
It's more like fake news.
All right. So that was fun.
The other one that I'm told is a hoax is the news that the Big Bang theory has been debunked.
So the article that made all the noise recently was that scientists are, quote, panicked because the Webb telescope is showing that the Big Bang didn't happen.
But if you talk to people who are in that field, they say something more along the lines of, nothing like that happened.
No, the Big Bang's still fine.
There's just some things that the web showed that are different than prediction.
And, you know, we haven't worked that out.
But basically, the Big Bang is confirmed by many other ways.
It's just that there's some new information that didn't fit the exact prediction.
So, you know, it's just slightly different than the prediction.
So, doesn't this sort of beg the question...
What is a slight difference?
Because my understanding is that they discovered entire galaxies at the edge of the universe that couldn't exist because of the age.
In other words, it would be impossible for the Big Bang to have happened the way it's predicted to have happened if the oldest things or the oldest looking things are at the edge of the universe.
They should look the youngest Because by the time the light reaches us, we'd be seeing the past.
So I may be describing that wrong.
But the point is, there's some galaxies that shouldn't be where they are.
I've got a feeling that's not a slight problem.
But if a scientist tells you it's a slight problem, what are you going to do?
Are you going to disagree with the scientist?
I believe I will.
I believe I'm going to disagree with the scientist.
I don't think there's a slight problem if you've got galaxies that are the wrong age in the wrong place.
It feels like a big problem, right?
And does it matter how many things confirm the Big Bang if there's one big thing that says it didn't happen?
I'm pretty sure that no matter how many other things confirm it did happen, if you have one really glaring big thing that says it didn't, Isn't it more likely that the other things are, you know, a confirmation bias or a false positive?
The rogue astronomer, that's right.
I'm the rogue astronomer.
But of course, I think that simulation theory has already debunked it anyway.
So in my view, all of history is debunked from evolution through...
Oh, by the way, they found a new...
I guess there's a new skeleton that adds a new human species to the line.
How many times are we going to find a new species that rewrites all of human evolution?
I feel like there was a lot of guessing going on there.
A lot of rewriting.
Alright. So I guess I got hoaxed twice.
Potentially. Although I think the Big Bang thing might be a hoax that it's a hoax.
So that's still an open question in my mind.
All right, I saw Jared Kushner giving an interview.
He's got his book out.
I think it was number one.
Jared Kushner's book is number one bestseller.
And let me ask you this.
Many of you are skeptics.
And Jeff says I've been hoaxed way more than that.
So Jeff, I'm sure you'll have some examples.
Do you remember the thing that people say the most about me?
What's the biggest criticism you hear about me?
There are two of them. Two biggest criticisms you hear about me.
Number one, I never admit I'm wrong, which I literally just did.
I just told you I got hoaxed.
Practically every show, I admit something I got wrong.
But yet it's the biggest criticism against me is that I don't admit when I get things wrong, even though I probably do it more than anybody's ever done it.
I'll bet that's true.
I know that's an absurd claim, but I'll bet for a public figure I've admitted I'm wrong more than anybody ever has.
Possibly. Because I do it almost every show.
I say, well, I used to think this, but I was wrong.
Now, let me ask you this to see who you think was right.
Jared Kushner had an estimate of how many lives were saved because of vaccinations.
What number did he put on that?
Now, I'm not saying it's true.
I'm saying that there was a study that said that X number of lives were saved by the vaccination programs.
What do you think the number was?
Give me a number. 20 million.
20 million. Do you believe it?
Do you believe that 20 million people were saved by the vaccinations?
Well, if it didn't save 20 million people or something along those lines, then it probably wasn't worth it, was it?
I feel like it would have to save at least 20 million or it wouldn't look like it was worth it.
Because 20 million is a pretty small percentage of 7.5 billion or whatever we are.
So, now do you disbelieve the Trump administration when they say that, and I'm sure Trump will say the same, that 20 million people were saved?
Do you think the Trump administration is lying to you?
Because many of you are Trump supporters.
You think that the person you support is lying to you on such a big question?
How can you possibly support Trump if you think the vaccinations were bullshit?
Isn't that a weird question?
There's sort of a weird...
Well, I don't really understand it.
Because there's so many people who think the pandemic was just sort of the biggest thing that's happened, and the vaccinations were the biggest evil that's happened, some would say.
How in the world could you support Trump if you were anti-vaccination?
That makes no sense at all.
Does it? Alright, so I don't want to get you all worked up about that.
Just to let you know that Jared thinks that 20 million people were saved by it.
And the estimate is that the death rate was 63% lower than it would have been if there had not been vaccinations.
Now, isn't that a pretty big difference between the vaccinations are killing people Versus they saved 20 million people.
So 20 million is like more than three times the Holocaust.
So our difference of opinion on the reality, just hold this in your mind, our differences of opinion on what's real differ by three times the size of the Holocaust.
Holocaust was 6 million something.
But we have a 20 million death difference of opinion.
20 million death difference.
That's the world we're in.
There's nothing we can't disagree with anymore.
Now, if I had to guess...
I would think that it's very unusual that we could get to this point in history without knowing for sure that the vaccinations made a difference.
Do you think we could get to this point in history without knowing?
Because the medical community seems pretty unified.
And when I say that, I know there are rogues.
Yes, there are rogue doctors.
But is it true that the The consensus, official opinion of every major industrial country is that vaccinations worked really well.
Worked meaning save people's lives, not worked in terms of slowing the spread.
Is that wrong?
Can anybody give me a government source from a major government that said the vaccinations didn't work?
Is there any government source?
Bulgaria? Denmark?
I don't think so. But if you have something like that, send it to me, okay?
Because those who think the vaccinations didn't work, and frankly, I don't know.
How would I know? I mean, there's nothing I believe anymore in terms of data.
But that's a really big discrepancy, 20 million saved versus your opinion that people died because of it.
Hard to explain, that difference.
Doesn't mean I'm right.
It just means it's hard to explain.
And there's also a study that said one year after recovering from initial infection, survivors had a 72% higher risk of heart failure.
So there is some data that says there's way greater risk if you get COVID-19 To get a heart attack later.
Much greater risk than the vaccinations themselves, say this official data.
Do you think it's true? Do you believe this study?
That the people who got COVID are 72% more likely to get a heart attack later?
Or do you believe that it's a fake data and that really people are dying from the vaccinations themselves?
Because it probably should be easy to separate the people who didn't get a vaccination And compare them to the other people who didn't get a vaccination, but some of them were infected.
It feels like an easy thing to test.
But I do not believe this data.
I do not believe this data, do you?
I don't believe it. I mean, it might be true.
I'm not saying it's false. I'm just saying it's the sort of thing I don't believe.
All right, did you see the...
There was a surprise interview with Joe Rogan and Mark Zuckerberg.
And Rogan asked Zuckerberg about the Hunter laptop story.
And Zuckerberg said that the FBI did talk to Facebook and told them in advance that they're expecting some Russian disinformation.
Now, they did not say specifically that the laptop would be Russian disinformation, but they just said, hey, watch out for some Russian disinformation.
And then in the news, they labeled the Hunter laptop disinformation.
So now, what would the Facebook fact-checkers do?
If 50 intel people say it's real, it's real that it's disinformation, what is Facebook going to do?
They're going to have to go with the official word, right?
So apparently they didn't ban it.
Talk of the laptop.
They just suppressed it.
Which he says directly.
They suppressed it from being spread as widely as it would be.
What do you think of that?
Is Facebook bad for having done that?
Keep in mind it was the government that told them this was fake information.
The government. I feel like if the government tells you something is fake, you have to take that a little bit seriously.
It turns out they were lying.
So, and then I guess Facebook handled it differently than other platforms.
But it's pretty damning.
I'm not so sure it's damning about Facebook as it is about the FBI. I mean, it does show you that the FBI is...
Effectively trying to run the country.
That's what it seems to me.
Alright. There's a movie called My Son Hunter.
A Hunter Biden biopic.
And I guess Gina Carano is in it as a secret service agency.
And so it shows, it purports to show the, you know, the sordid life of Hunter Biden.
I'm really against this movie.
This is one of the lowest things I've seen in public.
Now, if the election was over, oh, fine.
Yeah, that's fine. But here's a guy who has not yet gone through the legal system.
There might be some investigations about him.
And I just think this is messed up.
I think it's messed up to have a movie framing you and you don't get a chance to respond to the movie.
I feel as though the movie should be legally banned.
I feel like Hunter should have some recourse to ban it.
And the reason would be justice.
Because would you want to go into a situation where you might have some legal risk, and before you go in for your legal risk, there's a movie that's designed just to defame you?
And the movie is out in the public?
I don't know. I feel like he should have some legal recourse to, at the very least, have his stuff handled by people who have never seen the movie.
But... You know, I get freedom of speech.
I get First Amendment.
And so maybe there's just nothing to do about it.
But as a people, maybe we should use our own free speech to say you shouldn't watch it until after the elections.
I mean, obviously, people are going to watch it anyway.
But I think that'll be my decision.
I think I won't watch it until after the election.
And if it's still interesting, I'll watch it.
I'll probably see all the clips before then.
But the problem is that a movie is visual and it's very powerful.
And this thing is going to move your opinion because it's powerful and because it's a movie.
And that's very unfair to Hunter Biden.
Now, if it sounds like I'm defending Hunter Biden, I'm not.
I'm defending a citizen.
If you were the citizen in this situation, if you were in Hunter Biden's situation, and somebody made a whole movie about you, how much do you think the dialogue in the movie is accurate?
You know when they make a movie, they make up the dialogue, right?
They make up the dialogue because nobody was there that remembers exactly who said what.
So it's going to be an entirely fake movie.
Which they will allege is closer to truth than it possibly could be with what they could possibly know.
And, I mean, this seems like the worst offense against justice that I've ever seen.
Hyperbole, but you know what I mean.
Now, if there's somebody here who says freedom of speech, that's the end of the story, I'd say, okay, it might be the end of the story.
I'm not going to push back hard against somebody who says, hey, yeah, it might be repulsive, but free speech.
Maybe that has to be the winning argument.
I wouldn't push against that.
That might have to be the winning argument, just free speech.
But you do get that it's horrible what's being done to him.
And you wouldn't want this being done to you.
And that's independent of what he has or has not done or what he is or is not guilty of.
This is just icky.
We should not be in favor of this.
You should not support that movie.
That's my opinion.
This student load and forgiveness thing is silly because there isn't...
Here's my opinion.
There isn't the slightest chance this can happen.
How many of you think that Joe Biden as president is going to raise our taxes by $300 billion by using an obscure COVID excuse when the pandemic's basically over.
You don't think the Supreme Court is going to stop it?
Even Nancy Pelosi says the president can't do that.
You're sure Biden researched it?
Well, they did research it, and they have a legal argument.
But it's not a legal argument that could possibly stand up in the Supreme Court.
Now, isn't the problem that there's nobody who would have standing to bring the...
Don't I have standing?
Because, according to the news, my personal taxes, because of my income range, My personal taxes would go up roughly the amount of one entire college education for a person.
That's just my taxes.
So basically, I would be paying for an entire college education for one person, you know, over time.
Now, I paid for my entire college education.
I had some scholarships, actually, so full disclosure.
But I didn't have any loans.
You know, my mother worked on an assembly line wiring speakers.
Her job was to stand there all day and put a copper wire around a magnet because she was an assembly line making speakers.
And she did that so that my siblings and I could go to college.
And worked other jobs as well.
So she basically had one rule for us.
You're going to college. That was my mother's one rule.
You're going to college.
That's it. Basically, there was only one rule.
Two rules. You have to be home at 5 o'clock for dinner, and you're going to college.
That's it. Now, I was not getting all worked up about this tax because it just seemed like another unfair thing that is the tax code.
Because the tax code is completely unfair.
Every part of it is unfair to somebody.
Somebody likes it and it's unfair to somebody.
Everything. So I wasn't too interested in it until I saw that I would be paying for somebody's entire college education.
I had no idea it was going to be that high a tax.
It's really pretty rugged.
And even in the middle class, you might be paying a few thousand extra dollars for somebody else's college.
So, first of all, it's offensive.
We all know that.
That's the obvious thing.
But how in the world is the Supreme Court going to let a president raise your taxes?
If it were still an emergency, I'd say, sure.
but it's obviously not.
It's still an emergency.
So, I don't know.
Here's my take.
There's no way it's going to happen.
How many agree with me?
My take is there's no way it's going to happen.
Agree? Agree?
And here's what I think.
I think that the news is treating it like it might happen so they can generate news.
I think the news knows this isn't going to happen.
Now, if it does happen, and the next president is Trump, look how much power they just gave the next president, whoever it is.
Because if you could just make up a tax...
And, you know, tie it to some obscure law or obscure emergency that obviously isn't appropriate right now.
If you can do that, then the President can just ignore the Congress and do whatever the fuck he wants.
So there's no way this is going to work.
To me, this looks like fake news top to bottom.
It looks like the real play is to get the Republicans to say no, or to get the Republican-appointed Supreme Court to say no.
I think this is all about getting somebody to get on record as saying no.
That's what it looks like.
So it looks like a completely illegitimate play.
All right. So what do you think that redacted affidavit is going to look like?
So I guess any moment now we'll see the redacted affidavit.
Is there any doubt what that is going to produce?
Don't we all know exactly what's going to happen?
It's going to be something that the left says, here it is, the smoking gun, and the right is going to say, we don't know what's behind those redacted things.
There's nothing here. Yeah, some of you are going to see the worst thing in the world and some of you will see nothing.
If we know that that's going to happen, why even bother?
I suppose it's better than having Adam Schiff tell us what he saw in the skiff.
So this is a way to beat the Schiff and the skiff play.
But basically, it's just going to be a national Rorschach test.
Literally, it's going to be a bunch of inkblots in which we'll all have our own interpretation.
Redacted affidavit is your next band name.
That is a good band name. Redacted Affidavit.
Yeah. All right.
Did you see there were some apologies because somebody accidentally let Ben Shapiro attend a public event?
So somebody named the Podcast Movement.
I guess it was some kind of podcaster's Big convention.
And Ben Shapiro showed up and took some selfies with people and stuff.
And the podcast movement Twitter said, Hi, folks.
We owe you an apology before session's kickoff of the day.
Yesterday afternoon, Ben Shapiro briefly visited the PM22 Expo area near the Daily Wire booth.
Though he was not registered or expected, we take full responsibility for the harm done by his presence.
What? What harm was done by his presence?
And, you know, I think Ben Shapiro tweeted it around with some video of him at the event.
And you see the video, it's all these people who love him, who are coming up and asking if they could have their picture taken with him.
That's it. That's it.
He went to a place where people loved him, and they took their picture with him, and then he left.
The horrors.
How can we allow this man to be free in public?
All right. I would like to give the joke of the day award to Lisa Booth, who tweeted this.
I want you to listen carefully.
It's the best joke of the month.
You ready? Lisa Booth tweets...
What if corn pop was just trying to protect the children?
Pretty good. That's pretty good.
What if corn pop was just trying to protect the children?
So the story of Joe Biden taking a shower with his daughter is still in the news.
I don't know what to think about that, frankly.
Do you know what is the most common way I am described in the year 2022?
Here's the most common way people describe me.
You know, even if you don't like the many, many ways that Adams has been completely wrong about so many things and never apologizes and never admits it, this one time, probably by luck, he got one right.
That's the common way people are explaining me.
Amazingly, although he's wrong and crazy so many times, this one thing weirdly makes sense.
And so here's the question I ask you.
Why are you so sure I was wrong about the other stuff?
Stop it. You're embarrassing me.
Over on Locals, they're talking about my IQ. It's just embarrassing me.
You're embarrassing me.
Some people say it's 186, some people say it's 185, but I don't think you can believe either one of them.
Just rumors. It's just rumors.
All right. But here's something I would ask you to do, and it's something I do.
If I have a strong opinion and I see that, let's say it's about the law, and then Alan Dershowitz disagrees with me, I don't know how often that's happened, but if I saw that happen, I would immediately say to myself, oh, I changed my opinion.
I'll change my opinion to whatever Dershowitz says, because he's almost always right on the legal stuff.
Is there anybody who would do that for me?
Is there anybody who would say, you know, my opinion was solidly X, but then Adam said opposite of that, so now I'm going to rethink my opinion.
Mostly no. Some yeses.
Mostly noes.
Not once, says Tom.
Not once. Well, let me ask you this.
How many of you have ever heard me say something that was surprisingly insightful?
Now, you can still allow that I'm wrong 99% of the time.
So that's still available to you.
But how many of you have ever heard me say something and you say, huh, that was strangely insightful?
Anybody? Well, there are 2,800 people watching, so it must be something you're watching for.
So here's the question you should ask yourself.
Are you really so sure I'm wrong about the other stuff, whatever the other stuff is?
I would submit to you That my personal experience is that 95% of the people who think I'm wrong about any topic don't understand what I said about it.
Would you accept that estimate?
My personal estimate is that 95% of the people who think they disagree with me are actually dealing with some out-of-context statement.
It's not what I think. Now, if you know that 95% of the people who disagree with me are actually working on the wrong information, why would you think that doesn't apply to you?
Shouldn't your most logical first thought be, oh, if he had some insightful thoughts about this other stuff that I agreed with, but this other one looks like a wacky opinion, shouldn't your first thought be, I don't fully understand the opinion or it's in a context?
It should be. Now, if I had never said anything that you thought was insightful, and then you heard me say something that was whack, the most reasonable explanation would be, well, he never said anything that's smart.
Here's another one. But if you've ever heard me say anything insightful, and then you hear something that's just totally batshit crazy, isn't the most likely explanation that you heard it wrong?
Or that you're interpreting it not quite the way I meant it.
It might be my fault. I'm not saying it's your fault.
It could be something I didn't say clearly.
But shouldn't that be your first impression that probably you heard it wrong?
And if not, why not?
Because people don't suddenly get smart.
Let me put it this way.
If somebody...
There's a guy I used to work with.
He might be the exception to the rule.
And what we used to say about him is that he would say like three brilliant things and then one thing that was so dumb you couldn't believe it.
And we always tried to understand how in the world could he say three brilliant things and then one dumb thing.
But then years later I asked myself, I know the one thing was dumb.
Maybe it was me. How could somebody say And the fourth one's just dumb.
But it's not really that common that people will do some really smart things and then a really dumb thing.
Almost always it means you don't understand what they meant.
So, I'll just put that down there.
Now, somebody's saying Sam Harris as a counterexample.
Sam Harris, I think, deserves a try to clarify his opinion.
So, I guess he's got a new podcast out in which he is clarifying his Trump opinions.
I haven't heard it, but don't you think that if you hear his opinions, you'll have a different sense than maybe you have right now?
He's a perfect example of somebody...
If you hear Sam Harris say something that doesn't make any sense at all, you have to ask yourself if maybe the problem's on your end.
Now, when it comes to Trump, there really is a Trump derangement syndrome.
In fact, Bill Barr said this in an interview just recently.
He said, Trump derangement syndrome is real.
And I loved hearing Bill Barr say that, because he's not exactly a fan of the president, or President Trump.
He's not a fan.
So when he says TDS is real, that sounds pretty credible.
Well, I see some people are quite angry at the possibility the problem could be at their end.
Does it make you angry to think that the problem could be at your end?
Because if it makes you angry to think that that's possible, then you have no hope of being independently Intelligent.
Because you're dealing on emotion, not intelligence.
If you have any emotion over the thought that you might be wrong, sort of in concept, not even a specific wrong, but you just might be wrong in general.
If that makes you mad, you're probably not equipped for intellectual conversations.
You admire my work ethic?
I'm not sure you should.
So I spent probably, I don't know, I spent close to eight hours yesterday trying to sit in my chair for 30 minutes, and that's about all I could manage.
And the reason is I can't sit in my chair.
It's because the house is empty at the moment.
So I don't know if it's just a personal thing.
Does anybody have that problem?
That if your house is completely empty, that you can't sit still?
You have to leave because there might be people outside the house.
It's really hard. I'm an introvert, so I can spend a lot of time alone.
I can spend a lot of time alone.
But I can only do it if I know that I don't have to.
If it happens accidentally that I'm alone, I don't like it at all.
Yeah. Try a standing desk.
I've tried that. It doesn't work for me.
Yeah. Buy another hottie?
You know, that's not a bad idea.
Please go see other people.
Has anybody become less social since the pandemic?
Because it's not like...
I feel like I lost something important in the pandemic.
Because I find myself not wanting to socialize.
And that's sort of different.
Because even though I liked being alone, I've always liked to socialize.
And I have to admit, this week I've been thinking about myself, I'm not even sure I want to have a conversation with a person in person.
Writing websites...
Oh, you're writing a website that plays cafe background noise.
So I've tried doing that.
I've tried playing, like, restaurant cafe sounds.
And it doesn't work at all.
I don't know why. I have to turn it off right away.
But if you're in an actual cafe or restaurant, it's actually easy to concentrate.
I wrote an entire book sitting in a booth of a restaurant.
I owned the restaurant, so I could stay there as long as I wanted.
But it was so easy to write during lunch.
So as soon as the lunch noise started, I could write like crazy.
And as soon as the lunch died down, and it was just sort of the ordinary noise, hard to write.
Well, during marriage, we didn't have common friends too much.
Start playing pickleball.
Yeah, I don't know.
I feel like nothing seems interesting anymore.
Have you noticed that things are less interesting?
Has anybody noticed that?
No? I don't think it's the news.
It's like TV's not interesting, movies are not interesting.
Right? Well, this is still interesting, of course.
This is the best thing that ever happened to you.
Is it depression? I don't know.
It might be. I do worry that there's some mild depression thing going on.
I don't feel it's not weighing on me or anything.
But I suppose there's lots of variation there.
This is saving your day.
Let's go back to this. How is it saving your day?
You've talked yourself out of falling in love.
That's true. Yeah, you know, let me tell you where I'm at.
When you come out of a relationship, have you ever had this happen, where for a while you can see the machinery too clearly, and that in order to get into another relationship, you need to essentially fool yourself again.
You need to enter the hypnosis again.
Because if you were thinking clearly, you wouldn't do any of the things that people do when they form relationships.
And so you have to talk yourself out of thinking clearly to even have those experiences.
But when you just get out of a relationship, you can see clearly.
And it's very, let's say, impactful on your choices.
I don't know.
So somebody said, why can't I just make friends?
And I like people.
You know, I like friends.
But there's something I just don't feel like it right now, and I don't know why.
Like today, I could easily find some people to be with.
Actually, I have an invitation that I said no to.
It has nothing to do with the people or the event or anything.
I just can't wrap my head around spending time with people at the moment.
Somebody says there's depression, but I don't feel depressed.
I know what depression feels like.
I mean, you know, it's that you don't want to walk up the stairs kind of feeling.
I don't have that. I've got plenty of energy.
If I had low energy, Then I would think maybe it's depression, but I don't.
My energy's fine. But I'm getting a lot of work done in my book, so it's all good.
By the way, the book I'm working on, I'm almost worried how much impact it's going to have.
Like I'm worried it will have too much impact.
And here's why. I boiled...
In the book, I'm doing a bunch of reframes, you know, how to look at something differently, but a reframe that will give you an advantage.
And some of the reframes are so powerful that it's almost like a book of spells, because they're all one-sentence reframes.
So it's literally...
Let me take literally back.
I'm overusing literally.
It's like a book of magic.
Like literally a sentence you could say that could change your life or somebody else's.
And I'll give you an example.
One of the examples is, you've heard me talk about it, a reframe for drinking is that alcohol is poison.
So just instead of thinking of it as an entertainment, you just say alcohol is poison.
And a number of people who heard me repeat that, saw it in the book, stopped drinking.
Now, could you imagine one sentence that would stop people from drinking?
But that's real. That actually happened.
One sentence, alcohol is poison.
Just a simple reframe.
And I don't know how many people, but I'm guessing dozens, Based on my feedback, I don't have an actual account.
But lots of people, at least dozens, have told me that they stopped drinking almost immediately with one sentence.
Now, I'm not talking about alcoholics, because addiction is a different problem.
I'm just talking about people who wanted to modify their lifestyle in some way, but didn't have an addiction.
Yeah, okay, here's the thing about reframes, which I'll go over in the book.
If you think that a reframe has to be true, then you're going to miss all the magic.
Reframes don't need to be true.
In fact, they're usually not.
They're more often not true.
They just have to work.
And the reason that a reframe works is that words carry their own power.
So if you put some words into people's heads, you're reprogramming them.
And you can do it to yourself.
You can put words into your own head consciously.
So words have their own power, like a little programming unit.
If you put enough programming units in in the right order, you reprogram yourself.
That's it. Do you think Democrats or Republicans are better at reframes?
You'd have to give me some examples.
Are Democrats or Republicans better at reframing?
Because they both do it all the time.
Somebody's saying the Democrats are better at it.
Yeah. But I think it's closer to a fair fight now.
You know why? Do you know why the Republicans are better at framing now than they used to be?
Yeah. Me.
It's the obvious.
At this point, there are so many people who have read my book on the election and persuasion and have watched the live streams.
I've taught so many right-leaning people how to handle reframing.
I'd be surprised if Republicans aren't better at it.
What's the difference between a reframe and a narrative?
Well, a narrative is more like a story, and a reframe is usually the fast summary.
So they could be overlaid.
They could be overlapping.
But the thing with a narrative is, unless you're just lying, which a lot of them are, they're just lies...
I'm sorry, I saw a question that diverted me there for a moment.
So a narrative is more of the long form, and the reframe doesn't need to be true.
A narrative tries to be true, but a lot of them are lies.
But with a reframe, you're not lying if you're doing it in a productive way.
You're not necessarily lying, but it doesn't have to be true.
It just works.
Now, unfortunately, in politics, that's the same thing.
They use reframes that aren't true, but they work.
They work. You know, the fine people hoax is a reframe.
So instead of saying that he was talking about any people who were there who were not racist, they just said, oh, he's definitely talking about racist.
And then you say, no, no, there are people there who are not racist.
And then they say, well, but they were marching with racists, so...
And then you say, no, they weren't marching with them.
Well, but they were with racists.
And they say, no, they weren't with them.
They were physically quite far away from them.
Well, but they came to an event organized by racists.
And then you say, hmm, but there were also religious people there and Antifa and police and medical people, and they all came to a racist thing for their own reasons.
And so some people who like statues also came for their own reasons.
And then they get mad at you because you've taken away all the reasons.
Yeah. Well, no, that is the wrongest thing anybody ever said, none of your business.
Somebody said that a reframe is self-sophistry.
Sophistry, by my way of thinking, is something useless.
A reframe will change your life.
Sophistry is literally the opposite of a reframe.
So when you said reframe equals self-sophistry, that was exactly the opposite of smart.
Do I believe in elves?
What is the most important thing to do?
So what makes reframes good or bad is the intent and the character of the person using it.
That is correct. A reframe is a tool.
It can be used for good or evil.
That is correct. A book will not be out for Christmas.
It might be written by Christmas.
Is it reframed self-hypnosis?
In a way. Yes.
So the trouble is I use hypnosis in a wider sense than other people do.
So for me, hypnosis is anything you're saying that's persuasive and uses some of the tools of persuasion.
It doesn't mean you're going to a trance.
Um... Affirmations are a form of reframe.
You could stretch the definition for that, I guess.
Who's this bald, vexed, and childless guy?
Let me ask you this.
A lot of people, especially on the right...
Believe that reproducing is the ultimate win.
That if your genes have been reproduced, if you've had biological children, that that's sort of the ultimate win.
And I wouldn't disagree with that, because that would be one way to keep score.
And if somebody says, I'm way more successful because I had a child, and you did not have a child, I would say, well, if that's the way you're keeping score...
Okay. But why would you keep score?
Why? What is the logic or the reason behind passing your genes along?
Why? I understand that people want to do it, and I understand it's a biological impulse.
But have you taken it to another level where there's a why?
Because I've never seen the sense to it.
Expand your mind.
Well, that's so selfish.
Okay. If you have good genes, you should pass them along.
Why? Why?
You're going to be dead. Scott is an emotional wreck.
Compared to what? If I'm an emotional wreck, compared to what?
Alright? Is it ego?
So, in my view, reproduction is something that you do if your ego requires it.
And mine never did.
And that's it. Now, obviously, you need to reproduce to keep the economy healthy, to keep civilization moving forward.
But the fact is, it seems to me that if you're helping the people who are here, you're doing just as much for civilization as if you created a new one.
Yeah, and some would say that having a child is the ultimate narcissistic thing.
You have to create yourself because you can't imagine not having more of you, to which I've always said, you know, less of me would be fine.
I think a little less of me would be just what the world needs.
I need a woman to help me keep perspective.
How many people think that's true?
How many people think I need a woman to help me keep perspective?
All right. Why not continue...
But why? So somebody's asking me, why wouldn't I have kids?
That's not the right question.
The question is, why?
So it's not, why not?
Because you could, why not, everything that you don't do.
You need a why.
Now, I do believe that people have great satisfaction from it and all that.
Please don't have kids.
Please don't have kids.
Yeah, you don't want my kids running around.
But it is true that one of my relatives had the highest IQ of all presidents, John Quincy Adams.
True story. Lost on one of the divorces, lost...
So how many of you had divorces during the pandemic or breakups?
Breakups or divorces during the pandemic?
Go. All right.
A number of you did. No, no, no.
Yes, no. All right.
And... No, but I'm willing to learn.
Oh, somebody broke up right before the pandemic.
Wow.
Wow.
Some of you got closer.
Well, now let me ask you this.
Would the world be better off if I had had children and never wrote any books?
Because I probably wouldn't be doing this if I had children.
Mixed opinion there, huh?
I guess it depends how much you like the books.
Somebody says, I have a poor self-image.
Really?
Or is it just accurate?
You'd be better off at the expense of the world.
Yeah, I can tell you that I would not be exterior-focused if I had kids.
Do you agree? If I had kids, I would not be exterior-focused, but I'm very exterior-focused.
See what I can do for other people.
Well, here's the most interesting comment I saw the day.
Machiavelli's underbelly said this.
Have you ever heard the saying that the two most certain things in life are death and taxes?
The two things you can always depend on, death and taxes.
Well, Machiavelli's underbelly wonders if that's true.
That death and taxes might be something that both end.
And I think that's actually possible.
I can see people being immortal, and I can see taxation ending.
Both of those seem entirely possible.
In fact, if you went far enough into the future, it's guaranteed, I think.
Quasi-immortal, yeah.
Maybe quasi-immortal. Well, that is all I have for you today.
I think it was a highlight of your day.
Hard to imagine it could get better from here, but it might.
And I've got to tell you that the Dilbert comic is getting edgier.
So there was one that I had just flat turned down the other day.
But you can see the original, the one that got turned down, on the Locals platform.
So the only place you can see the ones that were too naughty for the newspapers will be on Locals.
