Episode 1857 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About The Headlines While I Teach you Hypnosis Tips & Tricks
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
25% of American women are on anti-depressants?
Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Experiment
Atlantic's David Frum spins Biden speech
Questions the press doesn't ask
J6 prisoner held by judge for his beliefs
ADHD Future Blindness
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I don't think there's been a finer moment in the history of time, space-time, or whatever the hell this is.
And you, my lucky viewers, are in for the best time of your entire day so far.
And all you need to take it up to amazing levels of happiness is a cup or mug or a glass, a tank or gel, or a 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 here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And wait until you feel it.
It's amazing.
Go.
Well, today we're going to peel back the scenery and take a look at the machinery.
That's right. We're going to go deep.
We're going to look behind the curtain, under the hood, beneath the rock, and then we're going to drill into the core of the planet to find secrets and truths that have never been experienced before.
Or we'll just spend an hour or so sipping coffee and having a good time, and both of those are good things.
I think you'd agree.
Well, in the news, here are the things we know for sure.
Long COVID definitely exists, and it's really bad.
We also know there's no evidence whatsoever that long COVID exists.
So those are both true.
We know, for example, that emergency rooms are packed with people complaining of long COVID symptoms.
I also know, because I saw a bunch of emergency room doctors this morning say, there's absolutely nothing like that happening.
I've seen exactly zero long COVID patients.
Say, the other emergency room doctors.
So it is totally true that long COVID is a gigantic problem that exists for millions of people and is one of the biggest variables in the entire pandemic, and also, there's no evidence of it whatsoever.
So you can choose your venture.
Which one of those do you like?
There is just as much evidence of both situations.
Just as much. I don't know which one's true.
Honestly, I don't. Also in the news, we have new studies that have proven, and new data, proven that vaccinations are injuring people more than the COVID itself, but, but, hold on, don't cancel me yet, but also information proving the opposite.
So we simultaneously have really good, solid information that the vaccinations have saved millions of lives.
And at the same time, really solid information that it killed people.
Both true. They're both equally true, meaning that they both have something like data, and there are people who believe each.
Now, the experts are solidly on one side on most of these questions.
But do you believe the experts anymore?
Well... Well, we want to.
We'd like to.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could?
Let's see what else we know.
We also know this week that ivermectin definitely works because there's a new study showing it and also that ivermectin definitely doesn't work because there are better studies that show that it doesn't work and an observational study doesn't mean anything.
So, these are the things we know.
Long COVID exists and doesn't exist.
Vaccinations are good for you and not good for you.
And the ivermectin totally works and totally doesn't work.
That's the news today.
Now, how much of this do you think is because the people who disagree with you didn't do their homework?
You think that's what's going on?
Do you think the people who are on the other side from you, wherever you are on these topics, do you think that it's because they don't have good information?
Do you think that's a problem?
Well, we're going to get to that.
Here's another thing that is true and not true at the same time.
Trump's recent speech was super divisive or the opposite of that.
Just a lot of fun.
So it's both of those things.
It was super divisive, divisive, Nazi-sounding scary shit, and also just a bunch of laughs.
Same time. Both of those, we're all looking at the same stuff.
Everybody's looking at the same stuff.
We also know that Biden has been simultaneously hugely successful.
Lots of major legislation.
You know, he's got the unemployment rate is not bad and things are moving in the right direction.
At the same time, everything he's done is a disaster.
So Biden is simultaneously one of the most successful presidents in our history and also the worst president in our history, same time.
Yeah, same time.
So let me ask you this.
Today for the first time, sort of not a good sign, years ago when I built my house, the one I live in, I put it in an elevator.
Because I said to myself, if I stay here long enough, eventually there's going to be a day when I don't want to walk upstairs.
So I put it in an elevator.
I didn't think that day would be today.
But it is. This morning, I actually couldn't handle the stairs.
It was physically too much for me.
Now, here's the weird thing.
I'm in really good shape.
I'm in great shape.
Physically, I can walk for miles, ride my bike for miles, go to the gym on a regular basis, but I can't walk up and down my stairs anymore.
Do you know why? Do you know why I can't walk up and down my stairs anymore?
I don't know either. I don't know.
If I were going to fall for the long COVID story, that's exactly what it feels like.
It feels exactly like long COVID, because here's what the feeling is.
All of my muscles hurt like crazy all of the time.
And I thought I was just working out too much, so that I took a little time off from my workouts to just see if maybe I just overdid it.
No difference. My muscles are sore all the time.
I can barely walk up and down stairs.
Now, by mid-morning, I will have loosened up a little bit, and I can walk up and down stairs easily.
I can run up and down stairs.
So by this afternoon, I'll be fine.
Later in the afternoon, I will again be so tired that I will just sit on the couch and stare into space.
Now you're going to say to yourself, it's old age.
Except that it happened at the same time I got COVID. Is that a coincidence?
Did old age just sneak up on me the same week I got COVID? Did that happen?
And were my exact COVID symptoms, is it just a coincidence that the exact symptoms I had during COVID, which is trouble walking up the stairs, are the same symptoms I have now?
Trouble walking up and down the stairs.
Now, When did I get my vaccination?
You're all desperate to find out, aren't you?
Well, I only got the original series for the Alpha, so that was over a year ago.
I did not get a booster beyond the first two.
They were basically one shot, but two parts.
So I didn't get anything beyond the first set.
A year went by when I didn't really have this problem.
As soon as I got COVID, I haven't been able to walk upstairs for two months now?
Two months? Now, and then I also had the brain fog for a while, but I have less of the brain fog right now.
Now, here's another factoid.
See if you can figure this out.
All right? When I'm completely wiped out and I can't even move, I can just barely stand up and get to my car, and I mean it's a struggle.
I mean at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, the act of standing up, walking to my garage, and putting the key in, it's actually pretty hard.
It's pretty hard. It's a struggle.
Then I go to Starbucks.
And I order a venti-sized iced espresso almond milk something.
I don't know what it is. I sit there and I drink that espresso.
Almond milk iced tea, whatever iced thing it is.
And when I'm done, I feel fine.
Like, I want to go to the gym.
My body's all great.
Pain is gone.
I want to go work.
I want to work on my book for hours.
Now, here's the weird part.
If I drink warm coffee at home, it just puts me to sleep.
What's the difference?
Does anybody know?
Is it the sugar?
Because I don't have sugar in my coffee when I'm home.
I just need to have black coffee.
But when I have it at Starbucks, I assume it's got sugar in there of some kind.
You think it's the sugar? You think it's the sunlight?
No, you know, the other thing I've been doing is going out in the morning and standing in the sun for a few minutes every day.
I've been hearing good things about that, like just the first thing I do.
As soon as I'm done with this, I'll actually go stand in my driveway for 10 minutes and just feel the sun.
Yeah, now you're also going to say it's because of marijuana, right?
Right? The obvious things.
But my marijuana smoking is identical to how it's been since I was 18 years old.
Hasn't changed that much.
And it's not like the weed got better this summer.
I mean, it's gradually improved, but that's not it.
I know exactly what it feels like to be stoned.
And this is different.
Very different. Now, somebody said, take a nap.
I've tried that, of course.
And then I wake up from the nap, and my muscles are still sore.
So the nap doesn't help the muscles.
So, here's the thing.
Do I have long COVID? If you were to say, Scott, you've never learned anything about psychology or confirmation bias, tell us, do you think you have long COVID? And I'd say, well, I've never heard of those things you just mentioned.
I definitely have long COVID. But then suppose you said, Scott, you've been studying this stuff for a long time.
You know what confirmation bias is.
You know what it is.
You know what cognitive dissonance is.
Now, do you think you have long COVID? And then I say, oh, shit, I do know what those things mean.
I don't know. Not only do I don't know, I don't even have a good guess.
I'm not even sure which would be slightly more likely.
No idea. But if you think that you are sure...
In my exact situation?
If you could be in my exact situation and you would say to yourself, I'm sure this is long COVID, then you haven't learned your lesson yet.
And you will learn this lesson by the end of this live stream.
Oh, there's more to come. Watch me tie it all together in one beautiful souffle.
You don't see it yet, but it's coming together.
All right. I saw a tweet from P.D. Mangan today, who's a good follow, P.D. Mangan, M-A-N-G-A-N, shows that 25% of women in the United States are on an antidepressant.
25% of adult women are on an antidepressant in the United States.
So I saw separately another tweet that said the United States rate of antidepressants is through the roof compared to other countries.
Surprised? I'm not surprised.
Do you know what is different about the United States compared to all those other countries where they have fewer prescriptions for antidepressants?
Well, I don't know this is true, so I'll ask you for a fact check.
Is it true that the United States is the only place that those companies can advertise directly to consumers?
Because you see advertisements directly to consumers.
Don't you think that makes the consumers ask for it?
And that's why they do it.
The whole point of it is to make consumers ask for it.
So, do you think that the United States has a much bigger problem with depression, or do we have a big problem with media manipulation and brainwashing by advertisement?
Which problem do we have?
Maybe both. Yeah, maybe a little bit of both.
It's hard to know how much of each.
But does that number sound right to you?
Let me just test it commonsensically.
So here's one of your bullshit filters.
Okay. If the thing that science is telling you doesn't map with what you're observing, that doesn't mean it's not true, because your observations might be biased.
But if it doesn't match, you should at least raise a flag and say, okay, there's a little discrepancy here.
Why is my observation so wildly different than what I'm seeing?
What is your opinion of the 25% of adult women on antidepressants?
High or low? Is it high or low?
Go. Or just right.
High or low? Yeah, it's low.
Almost everybody says it's low.
There's a few high. A few say high.
Most people think it's low.
Yeah. Why is that?
Why is that? Well, Here's my take.
I think that society is organized in a way that prevents us from achieving happiness.
And when I say society, I mean everything from the way we use technology, to the way we get married, to the way we have relationships, to the way we raise kids, to the way our school system works, just everything.
Just all of it is designed, not designed, it sort of evolved that way, But we have created a civilization that couldn't possibly satisfy its people.
Am I right? If you took those same people and, you know, just airlifted them and dropped them into another environment, let's say you just put them in another country where people are happier.
I don't know where that is.
Name a happy country.
What's a happy country?
South Korea? Poland?
Albania? Tahiti? I don't know.
Finland? I don't know.
Wherever they're happy.
Do you think those people would be happier if you dropped them in a happier place with a different civilization?
Maybe. I don't know.
Maybe. But to me, the 25% seems super low because what's not included is the number of people self-medicating.
How many people are taking illegal pills?
That's not in here, right?
Don't you think there are just a shit done of people who are taking an illegal Xanax or an illegal Adderall or an illegal something and that they're doing it to feel better?
In other words, it's an antidepressant of sorts.
Overeating, you could say overeating is an antidepressant.
It's a very bad one.
This date is from 2014.
So imagine what the rate of antidepressants is now, after the pandemic.
So you've got to throw in alcohol, you've got to throw in weed, legal weed, you've got to throw all that in there.
I think it's closer to 80%.
My guess is that 80% of adults, male and female, are actively medicating.
80%. And the other 20% wish they had, but that's another story.
What do you think, what would be your guess as to the popularity of abortion, having it legalized anyway, what will happen if you make it, well, what do you think was the predictable outcome of the Supreme Court?
All right, the Supreme Court said it's up to the states to decide.
But what do you think the public, on average, did?
Did the public move more pro-abortion or more anti-abortion?
What happened? And what was predictable?
What was the predictable outcome?
See, neither and both.
No change, negligible, confusion...
All right, let's apply what we've learned from...
Let's apply everything we've learned from persuasion, okay?
What happened when the Supreme Court ruled on Roe?
What did it do to the supply of abortions, of legal abortions?
What happened to the supply of legal abortions?
It went down, right? You could still get them, but you'd have to work harder and go somewhere else in some cases.
So if the supply goes down...
What does that do to the price?
It goes up. It goes up.
When the supply is down, but the demand stays high, then the price goes up.
Now, price is another way to say value.
Roughly. Roughly, they're proxies.
So it's not surprising to me that when you make something harder to get, like a luxury good, That people have a higher opinion of it.
It could be that just restricting the supply makes people want it more.
And by the way, you would expect that, right?
Because everything we know about restricted supply changes the psychology of how valuable it is to say, oh, these are hard to get.
If they're hard to get, they must be valuable.
Am I wrong? Just the fact that they're hard to get makes it seem more valuable.
Like you'd be a little more desperate to get it if it were hard to get.
And also, I think the Supreme Court decision made people think about themselves or their loved ones in that situation.
If it's not in the headlines, you don't have to think about yourself, oh, what if this happens to me?
But as soon as you think, what if it happens to me or my loved ones, suddenly you say to yourself, I think I want options.
If you're forced to think about it in terms of your personal experience, you're going to lean toward at least having options.
So it doesn't surprise me at all that there's a survey that says that legal abortion went up in popularity.
So I wouldn't necessarily say that one survey is conclusive, but it wouldn't be surprising.
That's actually the way, if you understood persuasion, you would kind of expect it to get more popular because it's restricted.
Now, to test my theory, what about cigarette smoking?
Cigarette smoking is actually way down compared to what it used to be.
It's like 10 or 11 percent of the public smokes now.
I think it used to be at least a third or half or something like that.
It was crazy at one point.
So here smoking was restricted.
In a sense. But popularity went down.
But it wasn't really restricted, was it?
Because anybody underage could always give cigarettes anytime they wanted.
So it wasn't really restricted.
Not in any serious way.
And then the vape was more available.
So I'm not sure that's a good example.
Alright. Have you ever heard of the Festinger cognitive dissonance experiment?
Probably not. Let me tell you about it.
Here's what to take away from this experiment I'm going to describe.
First of all, this is repeatable.
So you could do this experiment all day long, and you would get the same result.
So that's unusual and wonderful that it's repeatable.
And it works like this.
You ask a bunch of volunteers to do a boring task.
They're just, like, piling up blocks or something.
It's just super boring. And then at the end of it, you offer them either $20 or $1, back when $20 was worth more than it is now.
You'd offer them either $20 or $1, and they wouldn't know that people were getting different offers.
That would be secret. And you'd say, I want you to tell the people in the other room that this was actually a fun and exciting task.
You know, lie to them, in other words.
Because everybody believed it was boring.
But both groups were asked to lie.
So the people who were paid $20 to lie lied, because they were asked to, and then later when they were asked their opinion about the blocks, it was about the same as it was before.
They thought it was boring before, they lied and said it wasn't boring, they got $20, and later they still thought it was boring.
So their opinion was unchanged.
The people who were offered $1 also lied, because they were asked to.
But when they checked with them later, the $1 people had, by a large percentage, like 30-some percent or so, had decided that it was actually not that boring.
They had actually convinced themselves it was interesting.
About a third of them. Do you know why?
And there's a solid hypothesis behind it that can be reproduced at will.
And the thing is that the $20 people thought that the reason that they were lying was they were being paid for it.
Oh, you're asking me to lie.
I got $20. That's serious money in those days.
So I know I'm lying.
I'm just getting paid for it.
The people who got one dollar, one dollar wasn't enough to lie.
Most people will not lie for a dollar.
So when they lied for a dollar, they had to explain it later to themselves, and the way they explained it was, well, it wasn't really lying, because it actually was more fun than maybe I first thought.
No, it was interesting, really.
Actually, I enjoyed it a lot.
I was alone with my thoughts, and it was a good time.
Now, here's what you should learn from this.
These people's brains were rewired for a dollar instantly.
Nearly instantly.
We're talking about within hours or days.
One dollar rewired a third of the people there instantly.
One dollar. All they did was get somebody to say something that was opposite of what they believed, and a third of them talked themselves into it within a day.
Now, is that experiment, does it blow your mind that it's so powerful, cognitive dissonance, and that it's so easy to trigger it?
Does it blow your mind?
It doesn't blow mine, because this is something I've known for decades.
These studies have been replicated for decades.
Once you understand how powerful this is, then everything you see in politics and social media starts making sense.
So part of the reason that I can withstand social media silliness, and it doesn't make me crazy, relative to other people, everybody gets a little crazy, is because I see it this way.
I see it as people literally walking around in a fog and not knowing it.
If I saw them as legitimate players who were mad at me or had a real opinion of me that was low, maybe it'd bother me.
I don't know. But I don't see the world that way.
I see it as people just literally blind and just bumping into stuff.
And I'm like, ooh, just stand out of the way.
Let you blind people bump into stuff.
Just stand back a little bit and let it happen.
That's how I see the world.
I see social media as blind people bumping into stuff.
I don't see them as having Even real opinions.
I mean, I literally don't think their opinions are even real.
It's just something they heard, it was assigned to them by the media, somebody paid them a dollar and it reversed.
But everything's like that.
Everything. As soon as you think, well, those poor, poor bastards.
I'm sure glad that doesn't happen to me.
Aren't we happy that that doesn't happen to us?
It only happens to other people.
No. No.
No, it happens to you.
And you don't know when it happens to you.
That's the nature of it. The nature of it is you can only see it in other people.
That's why you have the illusion that it's only happening to other people.
But they can see it in you.
But it gets worse than that.
Most of the time when they see it in you, they're projecting.
Well, I don't know if it's most of the time.
It would depend to who you are. But you can't tell the difference between when they really see some inconsistency with what you're doing and when are they experiencing just more cognitive dissonance.
And so they imagine you're the one with the problem.
Can't tell. Can't tell.
That's what makes it exciting. Now, I have told you there are a few little signals.
You look for the person who's got the trigger.
Now, if you've not been triggered, for example, when I heard about this study, I said to myself, oh, that's exactly what I expected.
I would have predicted this exact outcome based on what I know.
So there's no trigger for cognitive dissonance in my case, because what I expected is exactly what happened.
But if what you expect, you learn to be completely wrong, that's when cognitive dissonance kicks in.
So that's your trigger.
Look for somebody who found out that what they believed was totally wrong.
Those are the ones who were triggered.
But we even disagree about what's right and what's wrong, so even that stuff.
All right. David Frum.
Do you all know him? Political commentator and writer.
And he's a big anti-Trumper.
And Here's how he describes Trump's...
I'm sorry, not Trump's...
Biden's speech, the one that people called satanic.
All right, so many of you probably said to yourself, that Biden's speech was the worst thing that ever happened.
There's no way you can spin that good.
Well, interestingly, David Frum, writing in The Atlantic...
Which, if you don't know, The Atlantic is not a serious publication.
It's owned by, I believe it's owned by Steve Jobs' widow, right?
And it's just a Democrat publication, trying to pretend it's not.
But here's what Frum titled his piece.
He said, Biden laid the trap, Trump walked into it.
So Frum's take on this is that Biden is so clever that he was laying a trap with this rally to try to provoke the Trumpists into acting crazy and thus prove that they are crazy.
So this was not an old man doddering through a completely failed attempt at communicating.
That's what many of you think you saw.
No, no. You were mistaken.
This was Biden cleverly laying a trap, and Trump just walked right into that trap.
He did. But here's the way Frum described this in a tweet.
So he tweeted this. He said, early in Trump's term, an anonymous staffer said something like, quote, Trump's not playing three-dimensional chess.
Most of the time, we're just trying to stop him from eating the pieces.
And then he says that Biden's speech goaded Trump into swallowing at least a bishop.
Now, here's your next hypnosis tip.
And I'm not making this up.
This is something I specifically learned in hypnosis class.
So my hypnosis instructor taught me this, and it's one of the most useful things I've ever learned.
You won't believe this is true.
So you'll have the same experience I did the first time I heard it.
Like, I don't think that's true.
And then you watch for it.
And every year that goes by, you're like, oh, it might be a little bit true.
And then eventually you're like, damn it.
Damn it. It's true.
It goes like this.
People tell you their sexual preferences in direct words.
You just don't notice.
It's just that your sexual instinct is such a strong part of your being that your language just naturally wraps around those preferences whether you know it or not.
You can't turn it off.
So when David Frum, who is a big nemesis of President Trump, writes, Biden's speech goaded Trump into swallowing at least a bishop, my hypnosis instructor would say, that is not a coincidental use of terms.
That's a man who has fantasies of blowing President Trump.
Now, I'm not going to say that that's true, because that would require mind reading, right?
I'm saying that's what I learned in hypnosis, and that whenever I noticed something like this, and I could follow up and find out if it were true, it was true.
So all of the times when I could confirm whether the thing I was hearing, I think I heard something very sexual, any time I could confirm whether or not it was true, it was always true.
It was exactly what it looked like.
Now, I have no way to confirm this one.
I'm just telling you the pattern I've noticed through my life is that it's not a coincidence.
Nobody could write and swallow the bishop Without feeling there's some kind of sexual connotation there.
Really? Swallow the bishop?
An hypnotist interpretation of this is that David Fromm has sexual sadomastic feeling about Trump.
Which, by the way, is probably common.
Are there any women watching this who have had sexual dreams about Trump?
Go. Any women who have had sexual dreams about Trump?
Because for a while that was a thing.
You know, maybe before his first election.
I see one yes.
My wife, yes.
It's mostly no's.
But you see a sprinkling of yes, right?
I assume it was mostly no.
I know two that did.
Right. So I've heard of people who did as well.
So it's not unusual to have sexual fantasies about a president or anybody in power.
Anyway, that's what I see in this.
What else is going on?
What a fun day. Alright, what about those top secret folders?
So here's a question I asked, and doesn't this amaze you that we don't have an answer to this?
I'll say this again.
I feel that there's a missing service in the news industry.
And the missing service is that the citizens should have a place they can go where they can say, this is the question I'd like to have answered from my government.
And then the news people would be able to look at the list and say, okay, this is what people wonder about.
So I will ask their questions, plus my own good questions, but it would be nice to know what the public wants to know.
And the number of times that the press simply doesn't ask the question that the public wants to know is really astounding, isn't it?
And you don't always notice But really, the reason that the questions they ask are asked is why?
Why do the press people ask the specific questions they ask?
What is their motivation for the questions they ask?
Yeah, it's all gotcha questions, right?
It's gotchas, or it's trying to make the person look good.
It could go either way.
But more importantly, it's for the reporter's career, right?
The journalist is trying to make the journalist look good.
That's the motivation. All the other motivations are subsidiary to that.
The top motivation is for the journalist to look good, because it's a career-defining moment.
So that's all that matters.
So under that situation, what do you think of those blank, top-secret folders that were found at Mar-a-Lago?
So a bunch of empty, top-secret folders.
And here's the question that I've not seen anybody ask.
So this is why we need that website to ask these questions.
How normal is it for a president's office to have extra top-secret folders in case you need one?
I would think that they'd be laying around readily available.
Would they not? Because it seems to me there are things that probably enter the Oval Office And probably get re-characterized on the fly, don't they?
Don't you think there are some things that come in and they're marked top secret and then the president looks at it and says, all right, this doesn't really need to be top secret and just throws away the folder or just tosses it on the desk?
Has that ever happened?
Probably. I mean, it's probably happened at least once because the president has that power.
The president can just say, why is this top secret?
Just toss this folder.
Somebody write this down.
This one's not top secret anymore.
That's a possibility. The other possibility is that stuff comes in that looks like it's not top secret, but when the people in the Oval Office look at it, they're like, ooh, oh, actually, upon better thinking, we better not let anybody see this.
And so they reach into a drawer and slap a folder on it, and then they do the paperwork.
But I think you'd want to get the folder onto it right away, right?
Like, I get that the paperwork has to be done, but you're not going to leave it unfolded while you work through the paperwork, right?
You're going to reach into your desk, you're going to slap a folder on it, you're going to hand it to the secretary, or whoever, and say, you know, do the paperwork to make this top secret.
So here's the question.
Is it normal...
To have empty, top-secret folders somewhere in the working area of a president.
My intuition tells me that that would be common.
But I don't know.
It seems common.
And so if somebody threw a bunch of stuff in the box, what evidence would we have that it was anything but extra ones?
And then the other question is, can't we tell if something's missing at this point?
So at this point, the GSA, however, has a list of all the documents.
Now we also have a list of the documents that have been recovered.
Can't they tell us which ones are top secret and missing?
Because the ones that were top secret, they must have been recorded as in the president's Possession.
So again, there's obvious questions that are not being asked.
Apparently the president at his rally had a speaker there who's been advocating for the release of some of these January 6th defendants, but one of them is really a sketchy case.
So one of the still jailed January 6th protester types is an actual Hitler supporter.
Like an actual Nazi.
Like actually has been photographed with a little Hitler mustache, talks about it openly.
So there's at least one guy that's being held in jail because he's overtly Nazi sympathizer.
Now, so here's my point.
You're ahead of me. Hold on, you'll be happy.
You'll be happy. I know where you're going in this, but hold on.
Hold on. Hold on.
That isn't illegal.
That isn't illegal.
And do you know why the judge is holding him?
he has not been accused of violence.
He has not been accused of violence.
Thank you.
Here's why he's being held.
The judge in the case said he should have held a waiting trial because he posed a threat to the public and that there was a potential for an escalation of violence from his alleged long-held neo-Nazi beliefs.
He is overtly and publicly and transparently being held in jail for crimes that somebody suspects he might do.
Not for crimes he did.
Not for crimes he did.
Now the crime he did gives him the cover for holding him, of course.
The crime of trespassing, I suppose.
But... I don't care that he's a Nazi sympathizer.
I mean, I care, of course.
I care that he's a Nazi sympathizer.
But it's not really relevant to this question, is it?
Not really relevant.
This is very unacceptable.
And the trouble is, it's a trap.
You see the trap? Because, you know, you can see that Trump walked into the trap.
The trap is that as long as they keep at least one person who is definitely a neo-Nazi...
They've got to keep at least one who's definitely a neo-Nazi.
Because then when Trump releases, let's say all of them, or pardons them, then Trump released a neo-Nazi.
That's the game. There's no way that this isn't a political imprisonment.
There's no way. And...
You know, all right, I'm just going to say this.
This might be the last time you see me.
I always say that, but I never know when it's going to be the last time you ever see me.
But one of the biggest issues is the concern, the valid concern, that the public is getting whipped up against judges, against the FBI, against the Department of Justice, and that the public might become dangerous.
And we don't want a world where the public is threatening judges.
Would you agree? You don't want a world where people are threatening judges.
Do you? If your judge puts somebody in jail for obviously just a political reason, you don't want that person to be threatened, do you?
No. We don't want anybody to be threatened with violence.
But boy, if anybody ever got close to the point where you would change your mind, it would be somebody who put somebody in jail just to fuck you.
Just to fuck you.
That's why. And I'm not talking about the person who's in jail.
He's getting fucked too.
But, you know, I don't care that much about a neo-Nazi.
Frankly. Frankly, I don't care about him personally.
But in terms of the concept...
Freedom of speech, equal justice, and the fact that this clearly seems to be a trap that's been set for people like me.
This is a trap for me.
The moment I found out about this story, I said to myself, A, I can't resist it, and B, I'm going to be flying really close to the sun here when I talk about this.
Because even what I've said so far, it's enough to be taken out of context, isn't it?
I've already said enough that I could be, you know, Rupar edited into complete oblivion.
But I had to say it.
I had to say it.
And that's the trap.
Because you can't be a good citizen and let this go unmentioned.
So here I have a choice of being a patriot, like being a citizen, trying to be useful, definitely at the risk of my entire career.
My entire career is risked just to say something that is right and true and good for the country.
It's just amazing.
Amazing times when. But this is the sort of thing where a Trump presidency sort of would clean some of the cobwebs out of the system.
And there are definitely some cobwebs there.
You know what I suspect was Trump's biggest mistake politically?
I think it was during his debate with Hillary Clinton in which he said directly, if he were president, she would be in jail.
I believe that Hillary was actually worried about going to jail, like actual jail.
I think she actually was worried about that.
And I believe that the response of the Democrats who sort of did things I wouldn't have expected to see, the intelligence agencies, the FBI, etc., they acted as though they were protecting Hillary, and the only way to do that is to take Trump down.
So I think that what you and I are watching is Hillary trying to stay out of jail by putting Trump in jail.
And maybe not just Hillary, but people associated with her.
You know what I mean? So to me, this looks like Hillary and Democrats trying to stay out of jail.
And the way they can do that is to take down Trump and all of his supporters.
And it's working. It's working so far.
If Trump gets back in office, and he doesn't need to get re-elected, because it's a second term, I've got a feeling some people might go to jail.
I don't know if the system can convict a Democrat, frankly.
You know, a high-ranking Democrat, I don't even know if the system can do it.
The system is so corrupt at this point, I wouldn't even trust it to be able to put somebody in jail, no matter how good the evidence is.
But that's what I see.
I think it's just Hillary trying to stay out of jail, and everything else is about that.
So the chief financial officer of Bed Bath& Beyond...
Jumped out of a hotel window.
No, it was in his high-rise apartment.
Jumped out of a high-rise apartment window to his death.
Now, he had been accused of pumping up the stock and selling his shares before people knew that there was problems there.
So he was involved in a financial scandal.
But what caught my eye is that it was at his apartment, where he has both a bed and a bathroom, And now he's gone to the great beyond.
So, code reuse.
Question. Did CNN always label its opinion opinion?
Did they? No, fuck him.
It's not too soon. He was a crook.
If he wasn't a crook, it was too soon.
But... Allegedly, he was a crook.
So, fuck him. I can't remember, because I saw that they did label Dean Obadiah's opinion.
Now, Dean Obadiah is famous for having the most anti-Trump opinions, or among the most anti-Trump.
And he's talking about how Trump's remarks are alarming, giving the...
The unprecedented spike of threats against the FBI. Now what do you think of that?
Do you think that Trump is the cause of the unprecedented threats against the FBI? Is he the one that caused that?
Is it his rhetoric that's causing the increase in threats against the FBI? Or, or, I'm just gonna put this out there as an alternative, could it be the behavior of the FBI? Could it be that the behavior of the FBI itself is bringing problems to the FBI? To imagine that the problem with the FBI is its critics is a pretty fucked up opinion.
I'm pretty sure that you didn't create this situation by criticizing them.
My God! Now, so the question is, since this opinion is, in my opinion, it's just ridiculous.
It's a ridiculous opinion.
And I don't even know if it's a real opinion.
It's the kind you read, you go, does he even think that?
Well, is that a real opinion?
But I wonder if the new head of CNN is making the crazy opinion people at least label it as opinion.
I think maybe it used to say opinion, but I don't remember.
All right. Here's another note, another indication that CNN is moving toward the middle.
So they had a story prominently on the front page of CNN that an executive of Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation is accused of siphoning off $10 million from donors.
And the suit is against executive Chalamet Bowers, the foundation itself, and her consulting firm, blah, blah, blah.
So... That's on CNN. I don't believe Fox News covered it.
At least I didn't see it on the front page.
So this is CNN. There was nothing about this story that softened it.
This was just CNN saying, boom, Black Lives Matter, executive, big thief.
It didn't throw in any, but it saved the world.
The large organization is good.
Nothing like that. Just straight news.
Top person was a crook.
That's the news. Do with it what you want.
I like this.
I'm liking this.
Every time CNN does something that clearly is unbiased, I'm going to call it out.
Because I think they need a little bit of encouragement.
How many of you think that if we had more explanations of why people were going to Epstein's Island so much, we'd know something useful?
Are you aware that many of the visitors to Epstein Island were adult women, just famous prominent adult women?
If you knew that there were a lot of famous prominent adult women, Who presumably were not involved with any weird sex stuff, right?
Because they were older than 15, so probably not.
Doesn't that tell you that whatever was happening at Epstein Island was at least sometimes innocent?
Am I wrong? The fact that a lot of the travelers were prominent adult women who were not accused of anything and didn't say they saw anything.
Doesn't that tell you that some of those trips, I don't know what percentage, but some of those trips were completely innocent?
Or at least for some of the people who visited.
That doesn't mean the other people on the plane didn't have fun.
I don't know. Who knows?
Right, now I'm not talking about Ghislaine.
But I'm not sure we should make anything of the fact that famous people went there.
I would think that his business model was to get as many famous people involved as he could, but it's not like he blackmailed all of them.
I think he just wanted as many famous people in his field of influence as he could get.
All right. So, it's a holiday.
Is anybody laboring?
I know a lot of you are.
Stanley Kubrick's death.
He wasn't already dead?
Going to work in an hour?
Okay. You're at the office right now?
Alright. You're working and watching?
That's what I like.
It's a holiday, so you should be listening to me and working less.
Adult women don't engage in kinky sex.
Well, there's no allegations that Epstein was involved with anything with adult women.
All right. Yeah.
How many of you saw me wash my dog on livestream?
That was the strangest content, because half of the people were like, yeah, more of this.
And half of the people were like, we don't want to see you wash a dog.
Oh, well, over on Locals, people liked it.
All right, good. Well, if I wash her again, I'll televise it again.
Catering to adulthood?
Are any of my opinions actually leaks?
That's a very insightful question.
Somebody asked if any of my opinions are leaks.
But I think you mean my predictions, don't you?
That would be the better question.
Are any of my predictions...
Fake, because I already know what's going to happen.
Well, I've told you that the best predictions are the ones that are already happening.
But I usually stick to the ones where, like, I can just tell it's already happening.
I don't need any inside information.
And the answer is yes, I have done that more than once.
More than once I've made predictions that were based on inside information.
And you know what? They are no more or less accurate than the ones that are not based on inside information.
Let me tell you something about inside information.
It's not that accurate.
It's not that accurate.
I almost placed a very large bet on some inside information.
Now, the person who told it to me had a good source, and it was solid.
It didn't turn out to be true.
No, nothing about the election, nothing about the Kraken.
Something completely different.
And for a moment, I thought, oh shit, it was something you could bet on.
So the betting market had a specific question on it.
I thought, oh man, I'm going to place a big bet.
And then I thought to myself, I don't know, there's something about this that doesn't feel right.
And so I didn't.
And it turned out to be wrong.
Now, my understanding is that it was right when I was told, but that a decision actually changed after the fact.
So the point is that even insider information is not reliable.
it really isn't it might be slightly better than the public stuff but it's also unreliable like Nvidia innocent people all knew they were compromised just by being there Yeah, I suppose. That's true.
Do ADHD. All right.
So, I saw an article that I tweeted.
Jeff Pilkington spotted this.
And there was an expert who was describing ADHD as not somebody who is easily distracted.
Rather, it was future blindness.
In other words, it looks to everybody, even the person with ADHD, it looks to everybody who's observing like they keep getting distracted with what's in front of them, and therefore they're late.
So they don't get places on time because they're just keeping it distracted.
That's what it looks like to everybody.
And the expert says total illusion.
It's a total illusion.
What it is is that the ADHD people have future blindness, meaning they care about what's happening right now, so that's why they're chasing the shiniest object in their environment, because it's happening right now.
I don't know if this is true yet, So I'm going to present this as not necessarily true, but as a filter or an alternate way of understanding what you're seeing.
And here's what I liked about it.
If you've known anybody who had this behavior, and I've known three people who consistently would be two hours late for stuff.
Do you know anybody like that?
Somebody who's consistently two hours late.
Right? Most people know at least one person like that.
And do those people exhibit any ADHD personality characteristics?
Probably. Yeah, I just blew your ADHD mind, didn't I? I'm blowing a lot of minds right now.
Now, apparently this idea's been around a little while, but it's the first time I heard it.
And so I'm going to offer you this experiment.
I want you to experiment if you have ADHD or you know somebody does and you can talk to them.
Experiment with this blindness thing and have them do this.
The next time they're preparing to go someplace that you know they're going to be late to, just see if you can get them to do this exercise.
Before they go to get ready, Just spend some time visualizing the entire path from the moment you're getting ready to, you know, putting on your clothes, to getting in the car, to getting to the place, to, you know, what time it is.
And sort of imagine it as a timeline, and it's all connected.
So what you're trying to do is imagine what you're doing now as on a timeline bar that is connected totally to the output, you know, the end point.
And just spend a little time Doing a picture in your head.
Picture it. So it's like a little movie in your head.
You're like, okay, now I'm putting on my shirt, getting on my clothes.
I see I'm walking through the door.
I see the other people gathering up or getting in the car.
And just talk through it as visually as you can.
And then just see if connecting...
Connecting the output with the moment, see if you can keep that alive while you're doing it as well.
Now what will probably happen is that the moment you start getting busy with what's in front of you, you will become future blind.
So there's a pretty high chance that you can't even do this exercise.
Am I right? I think if a lot of you tried, you would end up saying, oh, I forgot to do it, or you'd have some excuse.
But it just wouldn't happen.
I think that's what would happen.
Because I think the blindness sets in and there's nothing you can do about it.
Once you're blind, you're blind.
You can't talk yourself out of the blindness.
You just can't see it.
So the question would be whether if you practiced seeing it before you get in the putting on your makeup, getting ready mode, if any of that can cross over into the bubble.
Now my thinking is it might not work the first time.
It might not work the first time.
You might have to try it a bunch of times.
And maybe try some variations that you feel like would work for you.
Just see if you get lucky.
And if any of you get lucky, and it makes a difference, let me know.
Because I do think that...
Well, let me tell you something that hypnotists believe.
When hypnotists look at therapists, let's say the people who are trained to deal with the problems I'm talking about, ADHD, being late, so the people who are experts on that, the experts will tell you, well, it's going to take lots of sessions and we'll work on it over time, but they also get paid by the hour.
So the people who get paid by the hour will tell you it's going to take lots of sessions.
The hypnotist who might be, let's say, volunteering to do it for free, will tell you it's either going to be fast or it doesn't work.
Do you know why? Well, some hypnotists also charge by the hour, so those hypnotists will tell you, well, it's going to take many sessions.
But let's say you've got somebody to do it for free.
The person who's going to do it for free is not going to tell you that it takes many sessions.
Because I don't think any hypnotist believes that.
The one who does it for free is going to say one to three sessions.
One to three. Because after the third one, if it doesn't work, it's not going to work.
It's just not going to work.
But if you saw some progress in the first three, then you say, oh, let's keep pushing this.
This might work for you. Not work for everybody.
Everybody's different. But you can find something that works for everybody.
So that's my hypothesis.
And a hypnotist would say that this type of problem is almost instantly solvable.
Not for everybody. I have to throw in the not for everybody any time I'm talking about persuasion.
You should hear that automatically.
Not for everybody. Not all the time.
Not quickly. Those are the universals.
Not for everybody. Not all the time.
Not quickly. But this is one of those that it could work for some people quickly.
It could. There are some people who might be able to do an exercise, maybe not that exercise, but something in a similar vein that would actually cure you instantly.
That's a distinct possibility within the hypnosis worldview.
So we'll see. But it's something you could test, and I guarantee it won't hurt you.
Imagining the path to your destination is not going to hurt you.
There's no downside to this.
It'll either work, and then you'll tell me about it, and we'll solve the problems for the world, or it won't.
By the way, I was adding up the number of cures, things I've cured, and I'll tell you, it's a really long list of medical problems I've cured in people.
And some of it is because I reframed something, they stopped drinking, they lost weight.
Sometimes it's because I told somebody a fix was available, so I just told them of a medical solution that they didn't know about.
And so then they got fixed.
But if you count the number of people I've advised correctly who got the right treatment and they got fixed, it's hundreds, if not thousands.
I mean, I have no way to count it.
But it's at least hundreds of people I've cured, not me alone, but I've put them on the path to a cure.
So when I tell you, hey, I think maybe collectively, I call this the collaborative IQ. So it's not my intelligence that's driving this process.
I'm just sort of an organizer.
But the intelligence is the collective intelligence.
And that's always true, because if I got outside of what all of you thought was reasonable, you'd stop watching.
So basically, you constrain me.
And then I boost what you're thinking, and it's like this collaborative intelligence.
So, could a collaborative intelligence that does A-B testing cure ADHD? For some people, some of the time, not necessarily quickly.
All right, we got an NPC alert in all capital letters from Philip.
Your arrogance is strong today.
Let us analyze Philip for what is wrong with his personality.
Philip, you're very insecure.
Very insecure.
Here's the thing.
Are you threatened by the fact that I've cured people?
And I can demonstrate it.
I mean, all I'd have to do is ask people here, have I cured you of any health problems, and you would see a stream of confirmation.
It'd be easy, and I've done it lots of times.
And people write to me all the time.
So I know it's true. I don't know how many.
That would be different. But if you think that telling you that I can cure you of sometimes incurable diseases, if you think that what you're seeing there is my arrogance...
You're kind of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, aren't you?
You don't think you could handle a little bit of the feeling that I'm being arrogant?
You don't think that that would be sort of a small price to pay for the fact that people are actually solving lifetime problems, health problems?
Why would you want to discourage me from doing that, Philip?
I have a hypothesis that I learned when I was developing Dilbert in my Here's sort of a deep psychological hypothesis for you.
That men, unless you're truly a best friend or a family member, they don't really like your success.
Men, can you confirm this for me?
Unless you're truly a best friend, you don't really like other men's success.
You don't really like it.
It's threatening. We're just built that way.
There's nothing you can do about it, right?
Now, if it's a family member, like a true friend, yes.
In those cases, you are genuinely happy.
But if it's just somebody heard about, maybe you're not so happy, right?
Here's how I discovered this.
When I was developing Dilbert in my cubicle, I would often do a comic that I would draw on my whiteboard that was just about the office and something that happened.
And people liked it.
They liked it enough that they encouraged me to become a professional.
Now what did women do when they walked into my cubicle?
Here's what women would do.
Sometimes they'd read the comic and they would laugh or not laugh.
Do you know what men would do?
Here is what three-quarters of all the men would do.
They would accidentally lean on the board and erase part of it with their back.
A lot. A lot.
In other words, they were accidentally destroying the thing that allowed me to show off.
Because women were walking into my office and being, oh, you can do that.
You can draw a comic. Oh, that's cool.
You have a skill.
And men were making sure that that got hidden or destroyed.
Who would be texting me at this time of the day?
Who would be texting me at this time of the day?
All right. So, have you ever noticed that?
Have you ever noticed that men will accidentally destroy something that allows you to show off?
Right? Now, that's a little bit what you were seeing there.
So there was somebody in the comments who was listening to me literally curing people of health problems.
Curing people of health problems.
And he had a problem with it.
Do you know what his problem was?
Was it my arrogance?
Now, I'm not saying I'm not arrogant.
That's not even the question.
So we're not doing yes, no, whether he's accurate.
I'm just saying what was his motivation?
Let's say he was accurate.
Even if he was accurate, that I was acting arrogant.
Was that worth a comment?
Is that why he did it?
No. My worldview is this.
That men can't allow me to show a quality that anybody would respect.
Some men are really uncomfortable with that, and it usually has to do with their own life.
And they need to suppress other men in every way that they can so that they feel better about whatever they're not getting done themselves.
So that's all I see.
So here's another answer to the question, Scott.
How can you go into this sewer of social media and watch streams of insults about your character, your looks, your intentions, everything?
How can you do that and survive?
And part of it is reframing, like just that.
When I see that comment, that doesn't look like it's about me.
Am I wrong? The person who called me arrogant in this context, specifically the context of healing people from health problems, mostly just by telling them that there's a solution that they can go get, right?
I mean, if you're gonna shit on that, there's something going on with you, right?
So this is a good model.
And by the way, it's not like I invented or anything.
A lot of smart people use this model.
When somebody comes at you like that in a personal way, they're not attacking the argument, they're attacking the person, they have a personal problem that's just being expressed through their bad attitude.
And if you can learn to see them as damaged, you don't see them as your critic.
I see them as just damaged.
I go, oh, there's some debris laying by the road.
I don't think the debris laying by the road is a threat to me.
If I see roadkill, you know what I don't think?
Oh, what's it think of me?
No, I try not to hit it with my car.
I try to avoid it.
So when I see comments like that, like, oh, you're arrogant.
Oh, you're so arrogant.
That doesn't feel personal.
It feels like somebody's damaged and they're acting out.
So it makes it a lot easier.
So that's why I don't have to go after this is done.
I will not have to go cry myself to sleep because somebody had a bad opinion of me because I don't think that happened.
I don't think there was any opinion of me.
I think there was somebody had a personal problem and then they acted out in public and then I observed it.
That's all I experienced.
I didn't experience an insult.
Now, is my interpretation of it accurate?
Well, some of you would say, no, he actually insulted you, Scott.
But I say, if you can reframe your experience in one that doesn't hurt, go ahead and do it.
So I just reframe my experience in a way that doesn't bother me, and so it's legal, it's available to me, so I just do it.
And it works. That's a reframe.
Exactly. That is a reframe.
Well, I don't think I cured him of his problem, but he might have some insight.
Is it in the book yet?
Not exactly, but I might revisit that.
I'm still adding reframes.
Let me ask you this. Is there a reframe that I haven't already talked about that I've ever mentioned that ever helped you?
Now, I know that alcohol is poison to help people, but are there other reframes that you sort of picked up just along the way and you said, oh, I'm thinking about it that way from now on?
Anything that helped you? Because those are the ones I want to include in the book.
If there's one that I didn't even think of as a reframe, But you took it that way.
If you can't sleep...
Oh, if you can't sleep, you didn't put in enough work?
Okay. Oh, hearing cha-ching for criticism of my writing.
That's a good one. Do the alcohol one again?
It's just alcohol is poison.
That's it. That's the whole thing.
Systems, not habits.
Suicide reframe. What was that?
Oh, the suicide reframe was to curiosity, right?
Right? So let me say that again.
If you have a really bad day where you're in a bad mood, if you waste that, don't waste that.
Don't waste that. I had a bad day the other day, so I had to fire somebody.
So I just used it to fire somebody.
And then I felt good because it was something I needed to do and it got off my list.
So if you're wasting a bad attitude, you're really missing out.
Because when I have a bad day, do you ever have a bad day when there's nothing that could bother you?
It's so bad. Like, you know nothing could bother me today because I'm already in such a bad mood.
It's not going to make any difference at all.
And then you can just do all those things that would have bothered you otherwise.
Yeah, all those things.
Any manager can take criticism, nobody can take humiliation.
Did I say that? Sounds like something I might have said.
Oh, saying it was your honor to take care of your mother before she died, even though she was a crappy parent.
That's one of my favorites.
Yeah. Well, my favorite for dealing with tragedy, which is usually the death of a loved one, is that it's not a tragedy.
It's an honor. It's an honor.
If you can be one of the last ones in the room, that's an honor.
And I certainly feel that way for my animals.
There's no way I wouldn't be in the room for my cat's passing.
That's an honor. A view on pardon dangling.
It's a good strategy. Pardon dangling is good political strategy.
People will vote on that basis.
That's why you tell your patients' families as a hospice nursery.
Well, good. So a hospice nurse is confirming that reframe.
That's good to hear. Oh, I'm sorry about your dog, Jack.
Oh yeah, somebody likes my everyone is addicted to something.
I don't think I have that in the book yet.
Oh, remind me to put that in the book.
Yeah, everyone's addicted to something.
You just have to pick one, an addiction that's good for you.
You know, exercise, that's a good addiction.
And if you had to pick a mind-altering one, There are definitely some that are better than others.
Now, I don't recommend to anybody smoke marijuana, because I'm not a doctor, and it is a drug.
Legal or not, it's a drug, so I don't recommend a drug to anybody.
Talk to your doctor.
But, of all the drugs that I personally could do, given that I don't metabolize alcohol very well, etc., it's the best addiction for me.
Now, it has its downsides.
As everything does.
But of all the addictions I could choose, it's the best one.
For me. But yours would be different.
Your wife Mindy is listening.
She says hello and won't stop commenting during this...
Mindy? Mindy?
I think, Mindy, we have to give her the listener award.
Mindy, you are Listener of the Week.
I'm going to give you an award for this because you're the most engaged listener that I've heard of all morning.
So everybody give Mindy some respect because Mindy's engaged.
She's involved. A post-divorce reframe.
I offer you mine.
You got married because you both wanted to get married, and you probably got divorced because you both wanted to get divorced.
That's usually the way it works.
So you got what you wanted twice.
That's how it works.
That's your best-case scenario.
Things go wrong all the time.
Do you know what would be far worse?
Not getting a divorce.
It sounds like that would have been worse.
Now, I also like the...
And I'm in this situation right now.
So this weekend I'll have basically close to no human contact for like three days.
It's not exactly true, but you know.
I would say 23 out of 24 hours I'll have no human contact for three days.
Could you handle that?
Could you handle that little human contact for three days in a row?
A lot of you say yes. Yeah, you prefer it.
You know, I love my privacy when I don't have to have it.
I like privacy if it's optional.
I don't like it if it's forced on me.
Yeah. So I'm in a situation now where I have to rebuild who I am.
After my first divorce and after the first relationship before that, each time I had to start from scratch and just figure out who I am.
There's an Imagine Dragons song that got me through my first divorce.
You'll have to help me with the title of it.
It's about starting from the bottom and building back.
What's the name of it? It's Imagine Dragons.
And you're starting at the bottom and you're working yourself back.
It was sort of an inspirational story.
What's the title of it? Anyway.
But the essence of it was there was somebody who, if I understood the lyrics right, it was somebody who was dropping out of music...
Some kind of performing arts school.
And I assume this is the actual biographical story of the singer.
And he dropped out with not knowing what was next.
And he called it starting from the bottom and building back up.
Was it radioactive? Or is it called start over?
I don't know. Whichever one.
No, it's not called start over, is it?
That's the actual name of the song?
I don't think so.
But the point is this.
This is very much the freedoms, just another word for nothing left to lose.
So if you're focused on the stuff you lost, you're going to miss the fact that you just opened up all of your options.
And you finally are experiencing freedom, and it's really scary.
So last night, at, I don't know, 8 o'clock or so, It was still really hot and I decided to go swimming and just use my hot tub.
And I was all alone, except for the dog.
And as much as I love swimming at night by myself, normally a terrific thing, the fact that I didn't have the option, like I just didn't have anybody to be with at that time, that it was really disturbing.
It was disturbing. And I tried to see if I could reframe it as a plus, to just see if I could enjoy the quiet.
So I put my phone aside and just tried to look at the sky and tried to remember what it ever felt like before I had a phone.
And I have some good advice on YouTube to get a gay houseboy.
Thank you. Now, I had not considered that option, but I'll put that on the list.
And it worked. And it worked.
I would say that I did manage to calm my restless, social media-driven mind, and I could simply enjoy being alone just for what it was.
It wasn't easy.
It wasn't easy at all.
But it worked.
Alright. Did you call an escort?
Here's a pro tip.
If you're calling an escort on a holiday, you're not going to get the A-team.
And there's a story I'm going to tell to the locals people, but I'm going to turn off YouTube first.
All right. Stay tuned.
You've got a good story coming. And that's it for YouTube.
