Episode 1916 Scott Adams: Seasonal Flu Deaths Confirmed Fake, Dems Think Narrative Is The Problem
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Screen Apnea is a thing
Jake Tapper removed from prime time
How seasonal flu deaths are counted
Gavin Newsom vs. democrat narratives
Things that died this year from scrutiny
Twitter's election integrity group
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
Coffee with Scott Adams, and I promise you, this will be the most awesome livestream you've ever seen.
Today I have something, well, you've heard of it.
It's called content, the good kind, because the news has served up a bounty that we must thank the creator of the universe for.
It's never been better than today.
We got good stuff today.
But before we get to that, would you like to take it up to another dimension, a dimension that you didn't even know existed?
Yes, you do. And all you need for that is a cupper mug, a glass, a tanker, a chalice, a steiner, a canteen jug, 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 hit the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go. I have a question.
The question is, is slurping allowed?
Yes, if you're alone. If you're alone, give it a good slurp and don't apologize.
If you're with people, well, think of your larger relationships.
Question number one.
I've solved one of the greatest mysteries in human civilization.
You ready? Have you noticed that everybody is anxious and has anxiety?
You've noticed that, right?
And that that's different than it used to be.
When I was a kid, I don't think anybody had that.
I mean, I literally never even heard of it.
I know I didn't have it.
Nobody I know had it.
But now everybody has it.
Now you say to yourself, what is it?
Is it modern life?
Is it social media?
Is it something about being attached to your phones exactly?
What is it? Well, today I'm going to tell you the answer and then tell you how to fix it.
That's right. I'm going to fix the biggest problem in civilization, which is everybody feels bad.
Right? Everybody feels bad.
You're overweight, you're healthy, but mostly you're getting anxious about everything.
I'm going to fix it now for you.
You ready? We'll work our way into it.
Did you know there's a thing called screen apnea?
Tell me in the comments, have you ever heard of that?
Screen apnea.
Now that means that when you look at a screen, doesn't matter what kind, could be your phone, could be what you're looking at right now.
We have a tendency to not breathe.
It's not the blue light.
It's because you don't breathe.
If you exercise, you breathe.
If you walk around, you breathe.
Right? But apparently it's a real thing.
And I noticed this on myself.
I noticed that when I look at screens, I don't breathe.
Now I thought it was more about concentrating.
I thought that if I was concentrating on something, I didn't breathe.
I knew that. But I didn't realize it was every time I looked at a screen.
And so yesterday I said to myself, could this be a thing?
And I'm going to tie it together with something else in a minute.
I said to myself, I wonder if I googled this.
If I googled, do you breathe the same when you watch a screen?
And so I googled some kind of phrase like, do you breathe differently when looking at a screen?
And what pops up?
It turns out that there's a thing called screen apnea.
It's well understood.
It definitely exists.
And you don't breathe right when you look at your screens.
Now, let's tie this to my ongoing saga of my blood pressure meds, which I suspect...
Maybe another one of these, you know, COVID vaccination situations where perhaps the benefits of blood pressure meds have been oversold.
So I don't know that for sure.
I know that the one of several types I took was bad for me because it had terrible side effects.
So I only know from personal experience, you know, one drug, One drug and one experience.
So I can't say for sure that nobody should take blood pressure meds.
I imagine there are cases where it will save your life.
But I do wonder if maybe it's oversubscribed or prescribed.
And then I notice this pattern.
So here are the things that are good for lowering your blood pressure.
See if you find the pattern.
Exercise, moderate exercise, especially going for a walk.
So that definitely lowers your blood pressure temporarily.
And also in the long run if you do it regularly.
Meditation. Meditation.
Yoga. Breathing exercises like the Huberman Method or the Wim Hof.
So they're two different breathing exercises.
And being active in general.
Just sort of being active in general.
Doing your housework, making sure you're up and walking.
And it turns out that walking is one of the most highly correlated things with longevity.
Did you know that? Mobility.
People who can walk every day tend to live a long time.
Now what do all those things have in common?
Yes, you already have the answer.
Breathing. 100% of the things that fix your breathing fix your blood pressure.
All of them. It doesn't matter which one you do.
They all work.
Every fucking one of them.
If it fixes your breathing, it fixes you.
Are you blown away yet?
Now, you've heard something about the blue light that comes from the devices.
That's probably also a problem.
That's probably also a problem.
But, apparently, the devices make you breathe wrong.
Breathing wrong affects your blood pressure.
Breathing wrong affects your anxiety.
Breathing wrong affects probably your weight.
I don't know that one for sure, but I'm guessing.
Now, I looked into the Huberman method.
Can somebody give me a fact check as I describe this?
I need a real-time fact check because I'm doing this from memory.
I think the Huberman method, which apparently he was part of studying the benefits of breathing differently, I guess, for some Stanford study.
So this is based on science.
And I think he described it as two inhales through the nose, followed by one exhale to get rid of all your air, right?
Two inhales through the nose, and one exhale through the mouth.
And that's all it is, right?
So it's literally just this.
Now, of course, the first time I heard it, I tried it.
Right? It's so easy to try, why wouldn't you try it?
You immediately feel better.
Like, immediately.
I mean, as soon as the second exhale is done, your body feels better.
You should try it.
Now, if it were the kind of thing where, you know, if you did it every day for 10 minutes, your blood pressure might go down a point or something like that, I wouldn't recommend it, you know, necessarily.
But you feel it immediately.
Just immediately. So, here's what I think.
I think that devices affect our breathing, and your breathing is the reason you have all the other problems.
Have I solved the biggest problem in civilization, that we're all anxious and we need meds?
Oh, I'm not done yet.
I'm not done solving your problems.
Today is going to be a tour de force of solving all your problems.
I'm just beginning.
So here's what you need to do.
I am going to hypnotize you right now.
But before I do, before you turn me off, I'm going to hypnotize you that whenever you pick up your phone, no matter what you're doing with it, This is your trigger now.
It's called a trigger or a key in hypnosis.
I'm going to key your phone to breathing exercises.
Every time you use your phone, no matter what it is, two inhales, one exhale, and then use your phone.
Got it? Every time.
Every time. Every time you touch the phone, No exceptions.
Every time. Touch the phone, breathe right.
Touch the phone, breathe right.
Now, if you get it right with your phone, I'm confident that that's going to be a big part of your problem.
But maybe you can extend that to your other devices.
It's going to be harder, because when you sit down with your other devices, you might be there for an hour.
So over the course of the hour, you're going to forget to breathe, right?
But during that hour, are you going to check your phone?
Probably. You shouldn't, but maybe you will.
So you pick up your phone. Phone, breathe right.
Phone, breathe right.
Phone, breathe right.
You've just been hypnotized.
Did he like it? That was hypnosis.
I told you what I was going to do and then I did it.
There were no tricks. All I did was pair two thoughts and now they're paired.
The first time you think of it on your own, you're locked in.
If you never think of it again, you won't lock in, of course, obviously.
If you think of it once, you're probably going to lock in.
Just once. Now, do any of you have any depression problems, or people in your life who have depression problems, I'm talking about serious depression now, who, if they were better, especially you, your life would be better too?
Well... Turns out that there's a new study, a pretty big study, so more dependable than most, you know, a very serious study, that they synthesized magic mushrooms, took some of the good stuff out, put it in a shot and gave it to people who were severely depressed, and what happened?
Just about all of them were immediately cured.
Quote, an immediate, fast, rapid-acted, sustained.
It lasts long after the effects wear off.
It lasts for months.
They say it starts to wear off after three months.
Three months.
Now, do you see the trick that's happening here?
Let me explain it to you.
For how long have you known that if you take the actual mushroom itself, people have been telling you forever it'll take care of a lot of your mental problems, like depression?
You've been hearing that for a long time, haven't you, right?
Now, somebody found out a way to synthesize it.
Synthesize it? Huh.
You know, you would synthesize it if you're trying to take something that is practically free and grows out of the ground, and you try to turn it into a multi-billion dollar pharma industry.
What would you need to do?
Well, if it were me, I would synthesize it.
So I could put it in a pill or a vaccination that you can't give yourself so easily.
So you're seeing a natural thing being morphed into a big pharma product, clearly, that's what's going on, so that they can tell you that if you eat those damn mushrooms you picked out of the ground, you're going to die.
But they've got the quality control, and they've got the extra ingredients, the X factor, the things that you can never, never do on your own, and you'd better pay hundreds of dollars per year.
Every three months you need a shot, and then you'll be all good.
You see where this is going, right?
There's no doubt about it.
Until Big Pharma could make money on it, you were not going to see a study that's a high-quality study.
Now you will. Well, so that's the good news and the bad news.
The bad news is the big pharma will try to control it.
The good news is it works.
So whether you get your own mushrooms or you use theirs, I think we've got a cure for anxiety, a cure for depression, and I think they're both highly likely to work for most people.
Highly likely to work.
All right. So there's your good news.
Anybody disagree?
These are massive.
Now, I don't know if this is the golden age, but if I were entering the golden age, the things I would look for are everybody agrees that nuclear energy is good, finally.
We're pretty much all there.
Everybody agrees that if we breathe better and work on our health and use magic mushrooms if you need them, that you can take care of a lot of your problems.
Right? Yeah, there's still the issue of who's getting vaccinated.
That's a problem. All right, we'll work on that later.
All right. Would it surprise you to know that the New York Post is reporting there was a study about who faces more scrutiny in the mainstream media, Republicans or Democrats?
Who do you think gets the most negative press, Republicans or Democrats?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
You already know the answer.
Do I even need to tell you the results of it?
LOL. It's exactly what you think.
It's exactly what you think.
Two inhales. Everybody?
I might make you do this every day.
I might make you do it every day.
All right. So, yeah, more scrutiny.
Something like GOP got 87% of the time negative coverage compared to 67% of the time for GOP. And that's looking at the ABC, CBS, and NBC. Now, some would argue that Fox News has a bigger audience than all of those, so probably this study is complete garbage.
Actually, if I'd read it more clearly before I came live, I would have said, oh, They're looking at ABC, CBS, and NBC. I think if you throw Fox News in there, and then you weight it by the size of Fox News, which is bigger than all three of them put together, I think you get a different result.
So let's call this fake news.
Jake Tapper looks like after the midterms, he'll be moved back from his evening program to his afternoon program, where he had originally been.
The reporting is that the new head of CNN, who wants CNN to be more of a mainstream news and not a wildly leftist news, he wanted Jake Tapper to be the face of CNN, so he put him in the prime time slot that Chris Cuomo had left.
But I guess that didn't work out.
He got shellacked by the other networks.
And they're going to move him back.
Now here's what is interesting about this story.
Number one, was that the right choice?
Was that the right choice to put Jake Tapper as the face of CNN if you wanted to present yourself as more mainstream?
Does he fit that, the more mainstream?
I'm going to say yes.
I'm going to disagree with you.
I'm going to say yes. You know that Tapper is the only person on CNN that I know of, that I know of, who ever added any nuance to the Charlottesville story.
He's the only one who said, you know, the president...
Clarified that he wasn't talking about the people marching.
He's the only one. Nobody else ever did that.
Now I'm going to tell you some stuff from behind the screen.
And I think I can say this.
I feel like this is fair, even though it's based on a private conversation.
I think it's fair. Because it's public interest.
You know, he's a public figure. So, you know, I know Jake Tapper.
I had him do some guest cartoons for Dilbert a couple of different years for charity.
And so we've talked a little bit.
And I've talked to him directly about the Fine People hoax.
Now, I talked to him before...
That one time he added some nuance.
I don't think I've ever seen it again, because it probably didn't work out.
I don't know. But here's what I'm going to add.
First of all, give me a fact check.
Jake Tapper identifies as Jewish, right?
Yes or no? I want to make sure I'm right about that.
Yes, right? Yes.
Okay. Now, remember I said about yay?
That if Yeh has had a life experience where the people who keep thwarting him are coincidentally Jewish, and it just keeps happening over and over again, if he says something racist, I'm going to say, okay, I don't like that.
You know, I disavow it, but I understand it.
Right? Like, that would just be being human.
If some Elbonian punched you in the face every time you went outdoors, And then you said, I hate Elbonians.
I hate all Elbonians.
I wouldn't say, cut that out, you racist.
I would say, I think I'd feel exactly the same way if I got punched by an Elbonian every time I walked out the door.
I'm pretty sure I'd feel the same way.
And I told you this story about somebody I went to college with.
We had a long history of being beaten up and bullied and robbed almost every day by black kids roughly his age.
Because he was in a neighborhood where that was a routine.
Now, he was a flat-out racist.
And I said to myself, okay, I disavow that.
Like, I don't join your thinking, but I'm okay with it.
I was okay with him. So he was a racist I could easily hang around with and be friends with.
Why? Because he came by it the honest way.
He came by it the honest way.
He was abused by one group of people every fucking day.
If that happens to me, I'll be as racist as I need to be.
I mean, I'm going to do whatever feels right for me, and I don't care about that other group if they beat me up every day.
And I'm not going to be all nuanced about it, right?
How much nuance am I going to put on that?
None. I might intellectually realize that this was a special case and cannot be generalized to the rest of the group, but fuck that.
If anybody in that group beat me up every day for a year, fuck that.
You're not going to get any nuance out of me.
I don't care how reasonable it is, it's not going to happen.
All right. Two sniffs and an exhale.
Well, that felt good. All right, so here's what I say about Jake Tapper or anybody who identifies as Jewish and looked at the Charlottesville event.
If you identify as Jewish and you say to yourself, I don't care if the president explained away his comments.
I just don't care.
Because the whole thing is just so bad that I don't want to hear my president softening anything about anybody who attended.
Even if it's true, I'm just not open to it.
So in my mind, you know, somebody like Jake Tapper, he's got a right to have a, let's say, an interpretation of Charlottesville that differs from mine, and I think I'm okay with that.
I think I'm okay with that. Now, it's different if he reports it based on his bias, but I don't think I've seen that.
I saw the opposite. I saw the one guy...
Well, not one guy.
I saw one guy who is Jewish on CNN who was the only one who ever offered any nuance to that story and noted that the president had a clarification that he gave right away.
So I think he actually was a good choice.
Like, from the perspective of management of CNN, I think he actually was a good choice.
I would say he was closer to being the middle than the other characters who had big names there.
Now, I've also teased CNN. Have you ever heard me say this?
That everybody at CNN is a version of Jake Tapper?
Do you remember me saying that?
I was contrasting it to Fox News.
Fox News, in my opinion...
The management and the producers, from the executives to the producers, a whole other level of talent, in my opinion.
I just think the Fox News executive people are just more talented.
And what they do is they pick on-air talent that have personalities.
They're just not like other people.
Is Dana Bash just female Jake Tapper?
Sort of. Don Lemon was sort of a gay, black Jake Tapper.
There was a little bit too much similarity.
Everybody was just sort of a version of Jake Tapper.
I say that jokingly, but you know what I mean, right?
Everybody is not too far from the same personality.
But then you go to Fox News.
Who's the Greg Gutfeld of Fox News?
I'm sorry, who's the Greg Gutfeld of CNN? Nobody.
There's nobody. Who's the Dana Perino?
You could go down the line.
Who's the Tucker?
Right? So the Fox News has personalities who also give you the news.
Yeah, who's the tyrus, right?
I mean, the examples are, I could just keep going.
You know, who's the cat temp? Who's the, you know, who's anybody?
But that's a big difference.
And I think that that's what Fox News does brilliantly.
The other thing that Fox News does brilliantly is who they combine at the same time.
It's just way better.
Yeah, and Jesse. Jesse Waters.
Who's the Jesse Waters?
Jesse Waters, by the way.
I've been watching it for a long time.
And especially when he's on The Five, he does something I've never seen anybody do, and I didn't even know you could pull it off, which is he plays almost a caricature of himself.
In other words, he plays a caricature of somebody who doesn't care about nuance or the other side.
He's just going to sort of take a political view.
And the fact that he calls himself out as he's doing it is so wildly entertaining That is just, it's insanely good TV. I mean, it's really, it's one of my favorite things on television, is watching Jesse just being honest about the role he's playing at that moment.
Then other times, you know, he plays other roles on different shows and stuff.
But, oh my God, that is such a perfect combination of comedy with actual news, because the news, he says, tends to be real news.
So, yeah, I mean, he does a great job.
Which, by the way, I credit to Greg Gutfeld.
I don't know if Jesse Waters would want to hear that or not, but if you notice the Gutfeld effect when he's on the five, how he changes the interaction of the group.
In other words, he brings a greater danger to the group And also greater danger because he'll say more provocative, funny things.
And it allows them all to have a larger playing field.
Because as long as he's the craziest one there, everybody else can loosen up because they're not going to get in trouble as long as he's there.
Like, Goffield protects all the rest of them by taking the larger chance and making sure that everybody's having a laugh.
So that is the magic of Fox News, is that they know that those personalities work that way and that they engineered it that way.
Quite brilliant. Anyway...
So, yeah.
I think Jake Tapper was the right choice.
It sounds like the fact that they're gonna move him back to the afternoon means that it didn't work out, just ratings-wise.
But I do think this is another sign that CNN's serious about finding the middle.
But let's talk about two fake newses on CNN today.
I guess I didn't go too far complimenting them.
I couldn't even get to the next story.
All right, here's some fake news on CNN today.
Talks about a study showing that drinking caffeinated coffee, if you're a mother, could make your children shorter.
Remember, this is fake news, so we'll get to the fake part.
It's fake news. But the reporting, there's a study correlating caffeine drinking while you're pregnant with having shorter kids.
And you read all the way through the story, and you think to yourself, my God, this is terrible.
I'll never drink coffee again if I'm pregnant.
And then you get to sort of the last part of the story, and at the last part of the story, an expert says, I'm paraphrasing, yeah, but the correlation is probably with poverty.
Guess who drinks more coffee?
Turns out it's rich people go to Starbucks more than the poor.
I don't know if you knew that.
Did you know that rich people drink more coffee than poor people?
And did you know there's a distinct height difference between rich people and poor people?
For a variety of reasons.
Yeah, the whole thing was fake.
And the story itself says it's fake, but you have to read through the fake part to get to the part where it says, that's all made up.
It's just a random correlation.
So, I don't know, maybe it's an improvement that they report the news and then they call it out as fake themselves.
Seems like a step forward.
How many of you remember me at the, toward the beginning of the pandemic, saying something very provocative, which was that the seasonal flu numbers that we have every year are complete bullshit.
And that we don't have 30,000 to 50,000 people dying of the flu, because there's no way I wouldn't know that.
There's no way I could live in this world and not be aware of that.
Right? Now, how many people thought I was right?
How many people thought I was right when I said that?
Oh, a few of you did.
Oh, interesting. I guess I have more credibility than I thought.
Well, it turns out I'm right.
At least I think I am.
So... Guess how many people have died of seasonal flu so far this year?
But let me give you some context.
The estimates had always been that the number of people dying from the regular seasonal flu was 30,000 to 50,000 a year, right?
30,000 to 50,000 a year were dying of the regular flu.
How many people so far?
Now remember, it's early in the flu season.
It's early in the flu season, but there is reportedly more flu than ever before for the obvious reasons, right?
People stayed away from the regular flu so long.
They don't have the immunity.
So the total number of people who have died so far of the regular flu is 360.
360. So far this year, that's it.
360. Do you think that by the end of the year we'll get up to 50,000?
Do you think it's going to be like a really bad November and December?
Yeah. It turns out, if you follow my thread, and I tweeted a thread from an account called Unhoodwinked, which I recommend.
It's called Unhoodwinked.
So look at his thread that I tweeted showing how the regular flu is counted.
And it turns out that it's counted in two different ways.
One of the ways is, I think the CDC does it, with an excess death estimate.
They just look at how many people die normally, and then they look at the winter and they say, oh, there's extra people dying in the winter.
That's got to be the flu.
And then there's another way where, apparently, you come closer to counting them.
And if you count them, you get 1,500 a year, on average.
1,500. If you do the estimate way, I think both of these are official ways.
I believe they exist simultaneously as both official ways to count.
One is 30,000 to 50,000.
The other is a few hundred.
And they both exist as official ways to count.
Everything you knew about the seasonal flu was big form of bullshit.
They were poisoning you.
With their vaccinations, they had no benefit whatsoever.
Because it wasn't even a problem.
I mean, statistically.
Obviously, if you're one of the 1,500 people who dies, that's a problem.
Now, obviously, this is going to be skewing toward older people, or the one at risk from the flu, or people with various medical problems that have comorbidities, I guess.
But... Can I say this?
I think I can say this out loud now, right?
That the seasonal flu shot is probably a bad idea.
Now, I'm not a doctor, so I won't say that with certainty.
I'll just say that if you look at the full context of the last few years, no reasonable person could think it's a good idea.
Now, I want to give you one possible reason everything I just said is wrong.
Possibly everything I just said is wrong.
Because the number of people who are dying seems to be from pneumonia.
It looks like maybe the flu and pneumonia numbers get combined.
And the question I don't know the answer to is, does the flu turn into pneumonia?
They die of pneumonia, it gets coded pneumonia, but really it was the flu that killed them.
Can somebody give me a fact check on that?
And I'm saying yeses on that.
So it could be that it is the flu, but it's the flu triggering pneumonia, and then the pneumonia kills you, and then it gets...
But what I don't have is a number of how often...
The flu isn't the one cause of pneumonia, is it?
Is it? Don't you get pneumonia from a variety of things?
So, I don't know.
I don't know. So it could be, it could be, that the flu numbers are complete bullshit and you don't need the shot.
And you never did.
That would actually fit the evidence that we can confirm.
But also, but also, here's where I keep myself out of trouble.
It's entirely possible that we're just confusing pneumonia and flu numbers and that if you want to not die of pneumonia, maybe a flu shot helps if you're a certain age.
I don't know. I do not know.
But I know that what I can determine so far tells me I would not get the flu shot at my current age and current health.
If I'm 80, Maybe.
I don't know. I'll look into it more.
But we can't trust anything now.
I think we know that.
All right. Here's the funniest story, I think, in the news.
Gavin Newsom... believes that the problem, in terms of the polling, that Republicans look like they're ready to win the midterms.
Gavin Newsom says the problem is that the Republicans are, quote, winning the messaging war.
Yeah, that's the problem.
It's the way the Republicans talk about the message.
Yeah, that's what's making the difference.
Now, isn't that just LOL? That's just LOL material, isn't it?
Like, I don't like to be the LOL guy, but this is LOL. If somebody said that to you in person, you wouldn't laugh.
If Gavin Newsom stood in front of you and said, you know, the polling is all going against us, I think it's because the GOP is better at messaging, you wouldn't laugh out loud at that?
I would laugh in his face at that.
Not because I was being an asshole, but because I would think it was funny.
Wouldn't you? Like, I would think that's literally funny.
Okay, yeah, it's the messaging.
Really? Really?
Really? It's the messaging?
That's the problem? Well, and this reminds me of an update.
I should have given you this early.
The doctors for Paul Pelosi Have an update.
Physically, it looks like you'll have a full recovery.
But the doctors say that they can't save the narrative.
It looks like the narrative might die.
Yeah, they couldn't save the narrative.
You know, this is one of those situations I wish the live audience could clap out loud.
Because, come on!
That was pretty good.
They couldn't save the narrative.
So even Newsom says that it goes to my fundamental grievance with my damn party.
He's even calling his own party the damn party.
He added, we're getting crushed on narrative.
Am I wrong that if you're a political party and then you create a bunch of policies that people don't like and obviously don't work, and then you also have trouble describing why the policies that clearly don't work are really awesome,
Are you not two levels away from reality?
You're two levels away from reality, right?
The policy is out of whack with reality, because it doesn't understand reality.
And then beyond that, the way you talk about the policy that doesn't understand reality, Also, it departs from reality.
So you literally have two degrees of reality separation between the average candidate and reality, the Democrats.
And they think it's a messaging problem.
Now, why do the Republicans have such a good messaging discipline?
Let me ask you this.
Why do Republicans have good messaging discipline, because it seems like they do, right?
Well, on one hand, it's easy if those are the things you are already saying.
So the Republicans are just saying the same things they always say.
They've just got a little extra ammo because the Democrats are, you know, creating mischief and education, etc.
So they just have more ammo.
But it's kind of their normal thing.
Alright, here's another thing which I don't know if you've realized.
Have you noticed that Fox News has been running non-stop anecdotal stories of physical criminal attacks?
It's almost all black people attacking non-black people.
Almost all of it.
You know, which bothers me, I gotta say.
It bothers me not because it's not a snapshot of reality, because unfortunately it is.
It bothers me because what people see is what they believe, and if you feed them a diet of one thing, that's pretty manipulative, right?
Now, in my opinion, Fox News is a big part of why the Republican messaging is disciplined.
Because as long as Fox News is just hitting crime, crime, crime, crime, people coming across the border, here's another picture, here's another assault, here's another picture of border people, here's another assault.
It's easy to be on message if the media that's sort of on your team is making it that easy.
They're making it pretty easy.
Now, I suppose you could argue that the Democrats could have taken the same cue from the Democrat media.
But could they? Could they?
I don't know if it works that way.
But it definitely works on the right.
The right can look at Fox News.
They can say, well, they're running crime stories every single night.
So if I talk about crime, I'm going to be backed by the news.
The news will have my back.
That all is a good ecosystem.
But I don't know. I feel like the Democrats just complain about Republicans.
It's sort of all they do.
I don't see any coherent message.
Or worse...
The message that the Democrats decided on was a conceptual one.
We might lose our freedom and our democracy.
Let me compare two things.
Let's see. You have two choices.
I'm going to take your phone away from you, your physical phone.
I'm going to just take it away from you.
That's one choice. Or...
You might lose the...
You might get a slightly elevated risk of damage to the democracy and the republic in the long run.
So which do you choose?
I'm either going to take your phone away Or a second choice is a slightly elevated risk of the republic being distorted in a way you don't like sometime in the future.
We're not sure which topics exactly, but it seems bad.
It seems bad. That's exactly what the contest came to.
Inflation takes your fucking money, right?
So the Democrats are taking your money...
But in return, they're promising to protect you from a vague...
some kind of attack on democracy, because a guy with a bison hat once was in the...
two years ago...
I don't understand how any of this makes sense to me.
They actually led with a concept.
You can't be, I'm taking your money...
Like, out of your pocket with inflation.
You can't be...
I'm taking your money with a fucking concept about something that's three abstractions away from meaning anything.
And they did that.
I feel as if the entire Democratic Party has no leadership whatsoever.
Because who the hell is advising them?
Right? And Trump, of course, is playing it brilliantly, I think...
I worry that Trump has a health problem because he's too quiet lately.
I just worry about maybe something's going on there.
Or maybe he's busy.
But the smartest thing you can do is just stay quiet for a while.
Because the Democrats are just shooting themselves.
What's the old saying? When your enemy is making mistakes, don't stop them.
Perfect strategy.
Just say, well, if you'd like me back, I'm here.
That's all it would take.
Now, related news, apparently suburban women have switched fairly quickly and radically toward the GOP. Just an enormous switch from being Democrat voters to GOP likely voters.
And we speculate what caused this switch.
You say? You say crime, right?
You say education.
You say stay away from our children.
Here's what I say. You're all wrong.
Inflation as well. Inflation.
You're all wrong.
All right, I'm going to give you my theory, and it goes like this.
Number one, inflation, the education problem, and the crime problem have been the same all year.
Would you agree? The things that you said are the reasons that they suddenly switched, because remember, it's a sudden switch.
You're saying they suddenly switched Because of things that have been true for a whole year.
Is that your theory?
Why the sudden switch?
Only because they're polling it?
Here's my opinion, and this will be one that you haven't heard before.
Number one, if you're a mother, when do you start paying attention to politics?
It's your lowest priority.
It's your lowest priority.
Your kids are your priority.
So the obvious answer is they weren't paying attention to politics until now.
Right? Isn't that the most obvious?
The group that would least pay attention to politics until it mattered...
What is one way to define a mother?
Like a good functioning mother who's like really killing it in the mother department?
What is the one thing you could say about that mother?
An insane dedication to priorities, right?
Who handles priorities better than a mom?
Nobody. Nobody.
They get those priorities right just about every time.
And where was their priority to follow politics?
Nowhere. Nowhere.
But when it's election day, Then how important is it to the mom?
Very important. Very important.
Elections are not important to parents until Election Day.
Because they've got other stuff to do.
You and I, maybe we're not parenting every day, so we've got time to talk about this stuff.
It's sort of a luxury. Alright, so that's my first reason.
And I think it's strong. My second reason is going to be more clever.
And you've also never heard this one before.
And it starts with a story told in...
I think I heard this in business school.
Do you remember the product Hamburger Helper?
It's still a product, right?
Hamburger Helper. So they would give you some noodles and some spices, and then you'd have to bring your own hamburger and, like, you know, saute that up, and then you'd combine it with their thing, and then you'd create a meal.
Here's the story that you don't know about Hamburger Helper.
Originally, it was a complete product.
Originally, it included the hamburger.
Here's the hamburger, here's the rest of the stuff.
Boom. And they couldn't sell it.
Here's the thing that will blow your mind.
They couldn't sell the Hamburger Helper when it was a better product, a more convenient product.
Why couldn't they do it? It wasn't about shelf life.
It wasn't about the quality of the product.
The quality of the product was fine.
It wasn't about anything going bad.
It was about mom did not feel like she was doing her job unless it was a little harder.
The mother who took, let's say, identity from being the housekeeper or provider, remember this is years ago, so this is a less woke time, 60s.
Hamburger Helper came out in the 60s, right?
Roughly? Maybe 50s?
I don't know. Something like that.
But in those days, you had more traditional, you know, mom making dinner.
And mom didn't want to make dinner and make it look like she didn't do any work.
It would look like takeout.
So she'd look like, you know, her brand had been diminished.
So as soon as they made it harder to do Hamburger Helper, it became a gigantic hit.
Because then mom was cooking.
Right? It's not cooking if you just open the package.
But if you're combining things with other things, you're cooking.
So now she's cooking.
All right? Now, fast forward.
Mom goes shopping for anything.
For groceries.
And then she realizes she's standing in the store and she realizes that budget is not what it used to be because of inflation.
And now mom needs to make some choices about food.
And she takes it down a level.
She goes, all right, I guess we can't get any fun food.
Maybe we'll get hamburger instead of steak.
You know, maybe more vegetables and less meat.
How does mom feel when she knows that she's going to bring home worse food than she has ever brought home before?
Because she has to. It's just in the budget.
How does mom feel?
Like a fucking failure.
Even though it's not her failure.
It's not mom's fault.
Mom's doing the right thing.
Right? Managing the budget.
But mom is going to take the hit at the dinner table.
Mom is going to take a hit from the kids.
Where's my donuts? Well, we can't afford them now.
She's going to take a hit from Dad.
Why do we have, what do you call it, flat steak instead of good steak?
Can't afford it. The mother's reputation cannot handle the effects of inflation.
It's not just about everything's expensive.
It's about making Mom look like an asshole to the rest of the family.
That's what happened. Inflation makes mom look like an asshole to the rest of the family.
They're just mad that she didn't buy what she used to buy, and it's not her fault.
It's not her fault. Now, you tell me your government's going to make you look like an asshole, and it's not your fault.
Who the fuck am I going to vote for?
I'm not going to vote for the one that makes me look like an asshole in front of my own family, even if it's not my fault, and it isn't.
How about that theory? And nobody gave you that theory before, did they?
Yeah. Now, it's not one thing.
It's not two things. It's probably five different, you know, major things that cause the shift.
But I think this is part of it.
And I think the Hamburger Helper story really gives you some insight on how that could possibly be true.
Did I tell you this would be the best livestream you've ever seen?
Two sniffs, Exhale.
Not only are you healthier than you've ever been before because of this breathing thing, smarter too.
In fact, when you're talking to people, you're going to bring up this hamburger helper thing and people are going to be like, wow, you're pretty smart.
All right, you have my permission.
Do not credit me for this.
If you want to bring this up in conversation, you can even tweet it.
I'm giving you full intellectual property release.
If anybody says, hey, somebody stole your idea, I'll say, oh, I don't think so.
I think great minds think alike.
I'll back you. I'll back you.
I'll say, no, no, that was sort of obvious.
I think the smart people all got there the same way.
Probably had nothing to do with me.
Right? So that is my gift to you.
You'll be the smartest ones at your holiday parties.
Yeah.
Today we hear that ESG fund flows are way down from 2021, meaning fewer people are investing in ESG-rated companies.
Now ESG is Environment, Social Good, and Governance, right?
So ESG is trying to measure whether companies are good for the environment, they have good diversity, and they're basically a social good.
And critics such as myself say, that's a terrible idea, because you don't want to insert some entity between a company and their customers and their investors.
You never want to insert an entity, just ever.
It never works.
And so the fund, I just eyeballed it, but it looked like investments are down 80% or so from 2021.
About 80%. Now, a big part of that is that just people are putting less money into the market because the market is down.
So the market is down itself.
But I got a feeling it's more than the market.
I got a feeling that people are wising to it.
Specifically, we know that when people get a choice to invest in ESG companies in their own 401, what do they say?
Fewer than 10% of investors who were making their own decisions chose to allocate money to ESG funds when it was offered in their 401k.
Fewer than 10%.
You know, I'm surprised that it wasn't 25%.
You know why, right?
Because I always joke that 25% of people get every question wrong.
It doesn't matter what the question is.
It is 25% get it wrong.
If you could get all the way down to 10% got it wrong, that is not normal.
That means that the thing is so bad that the 25% rule doesn't even apply.
You've got to really push to get past 25%.
But apparently the average investor just says, fuck that.
I'm not going to put my money in this bad idea.
All right, here are things that, in my opinion, died from scrutiny this year.
And this is an extension of my basket case theory that I applied to people.
That everybody looks like they're in better shape than you are until you get to know them.
And then once you know all their problems, you're like, well, that's a basket case.
It turns out it's everybody.
Everybody. You just don't know them well enough if you think they're not a basket case.
But it turns out that applies to most large organizations as well.
Does Apple look like a pretty solid organization?
It does. It does.
If you were looking from the outside at Apple, wow, that looks like a company that's got their shit together.
What do you think it would look like if you worked there?
Same? No, it would look like a shit show if you're on the inside.
If you're on the inside, you'd be saying, is it my imagination, or have we not invented one awesome thing since Steve Jobs died?
On the inside, it's just going to look like luck and impetus, and it's a good thing that nobody's wised up to the fact that they haven't made anything new lately.
By the way, I own Apple stock, so I'm dumping on them, but it's only hurting me.
So anyway, I take this concept that the more you know about something, the worse it looks.
Would you agree? The more you know about something, the worse it looks.
It's typically true.
So here are some things that died from scrutiny.
Things you thought might have been good, or at least you were open to it, but now that you actually got to see the inner workings, you're like, blah!
Things which died from scrutiny this year.
Biden's alleged competence.
It's gone, right?
Do you remember when people said, yeah, he talks funny, and maybe it's just because he had a speech problem, but he's basically all there.
Does anybody think that now?
I don't think Democrats think so.
So the scrutiny was we got to actually see him as president, and then we found out, oh yeah, he's way worse than it looked on the surface, right?
How about progressive Democrat policies?
When progressive Democrat policies are originally floated, People can say, well, I like it, and people can say, I don't like it, and they can have their reasons, but you don't really know.
The way you know for sure is to implement the policies, which unfortunately happened, such as defund the police.
And now you can actually see the inner workings of progressive Democrat policies, and how do they look?
Do they look better?
Or do they look worse?
Once you can see the details, worse, right?
So, scrutiny killed that.
How about BLM? Did Black Lives Matter survive greater scrutiny?
Nope. Nope.
Greater scrutiny turned down to show that the organizers were scammers.
Apparently. How about ESG? Did ESG start out with something like an awesome idea, but the more you looked at it?
Yes. How about the anti-nuclear movement?
Remember that was a big thing?
Gone. As soon as you looked into nuclear enough, you found out that the anti-nuclear stuff was just all bullshit.
It wasn't based on any good thinking.
How about the vaccination program?
The more you looked into it, did it look better or worse?
I don't even have to finish that, do I? How about experts in general?
Medical experts mostly, but experts in general.
Did we not learn a lot more about experts in general in the last two years?
We did. And the more we learned about the experts, did they look better or did they look worse?
They look worse. Much worse.
How about, well, everything.
Yeah. Basically, everything we, CDC, everything we looked into in any kind of detail looked worse.
That's probably just a rule of the universe.
Every time you look into it, it looks worse.
So anyway, that's the basket case theory applied to basically everything.
Everything looks worse when you're on the inside.
All right. So China continues to be unsafe for business.
I saw a story that the area where, I guess the area where Apple makes most of its iPhones in China is now under lockdown.
Can somebody confirm that?
Because that would be like a really big problem.
I remember Apple seemed like the one company that maybe because they had so much clout, Apple seemed like the one company that could do business in China and maybe make it work.
Because, you know, Apple's, like, so powerful.
And now it turns out that even Apple's going to have some trouble because just being in China is a problem, because they're going to close it down.
So China is unsafe for business, even if you're Apple.
However, I would like to give you this counterpoint from Naomi Wu on Twitter, who's also a great follow.
Now, Naomi is Chinese and can give you, like, a different perspective on how people, you know, look and feel there.
And one of the things she points out is that the China Zero COVID policy worked.
And by that, she says that they got past the bad variant of COVID, and now even if it flares up, they're still on zero COVID, but even if it flares up, it's going to flare up in the less dangerous way.
And I thought to myself, that's not a bad opinion.
It does look like it worked.
Because if China knew that the variant would flame out, and most experts predicted that, right?
Did not the experts say that the virus would flame out to lesser variants?
I feel like we knew that.
So if China played the game to see if they could wait long enough to get past the first variant, they won.
Because they stayed in business, for the most part, except for the closed down parts.
Now, was it a gigantic burden on the people who got closed down?
Of course. Of course.
But that's leadership, unfortunately.
Leadership is screwing some people for the greater good.
Like, it's hard to not screw somebody.
I don't think they destroyed their economy.
I don't think the shutdown destroyed their economy.
Other things might, but I don't think that.
So, I don't know.
I think you could make an argument that China played it right for China.
It's not something that would have worked in the United States.
But do you buy that at least the argument has some meat on it?
You wouldn't dismiss the argument in a hand, would you?
It's interesting, because nobody's more critical of China than I am, but they might have played it right.
They might have. I'll just put that out there.
I don't think we can know for sure.
Mike Cernovich is surfacing a story that I tried to understand as best I could.
He's got some long threads on it, but apparently something like this has happened.
Back in 2017, when Roy Moore was running for office, for Senate, I guess, a whole bunch of Russian bots started following him, and then that became a story.
Hey, why does Russia like this guy so much?
Well, it turns out that Democrats are the ones who created all the bots, made them look like Russian bots, and then planted the news story that Russian bots love this Republican.
And got caught. So, you know, that's all water under the bridge now, right?
Can't go back in time, but at least we caught them.
So we know how bad they were.
So that's the end of the story, right?
Or is it? As Mike Sernovich points out, someone who worked for a group that was organizing this fake Russian bot thing is on the 2022 Integrity Team for Twitter?
Is it Twitter's integrity team?
I don't know. They're on somebody's integrity team.
So that's the part I don't know. Is it Twitter or is it just social media?
It's Twitter, right?
Twitter only?
Or also Twitter?
That's the part I wasn't...
I didn't connect the story quite right before I got on here.
I think it's Twitter. But anyway, this is the sort of fox-in-the-hen-house problem that we need to be vigilant of.
And this is, again, why, you know, Mike Cernovich is like a...
National treasure, basically.
Because, you know, he can do some things that other people just don't do.
Or don't notice, or don't talk about, or something.
But it all seems like important stuff when he's involved.
And this is a pretty big deal.
It's a pretty big deal.
But at least we caught it.
So here's another example where transparency works.
Somebody tried to do something, a little bit of transparency probably will modify it, I would think, because it'd be kind of embarrassing to just go on like nobody noticed.
So we'll see what happens with that.
Twitter has a moderation council.
As Elon Musk said, they're going to put together a content moderation council.
It will include representatives, and here's the key phrase, with wildly divergent views, which will certainly include the civil rights community and groups who face hate-fueled violence.
What do you think of that?
Twitter will have a content moderation policy with wildly divergent views.
That's good, right? Don't you like to have diversity of opinions?
You like diversity of opinions.
Wildly divergent views.
Now, he didn't say that they'll be racially balanced.
He said it the right way.
The right way is wildly divergent views.
So that's good, right? Here's the problem.
Here's the problem. I'm going to have to show this to you visually to get the full sense of it here.
And so I tweeted back to the, it was Elon Musk's tweet, and I had one problem with the idea of a wildly divergent group of people.
And the problem is that when you put together a committee that has wildly divergent opinions, it's the first panel of a Dilbert comic.
So I tweeted back the beginning of the comic that I'll be drawing later today, because I can't think of anything that would be a better Dilbert comic than forming a wildly divergent committee, a committee with wildly divergent opinions.
So this will be the first panel.
This will be the boss talking.
I'm creating an external advisory council of people who have wildly divergent views.
Now, you ask me, Now, you tell me, can I make a joke out of that?
Could I make a joke out of a helpful council of people with wildly divergent views?
And when I tweeted it, I asked this question.
Has a small group with wildly divergent views ever accomplished anything?
Anything? Like anything.
Ever. Was there ever one case in the whole world We're a small group, and the emphasis is on a small group.
A large group of people with wildly divergent views definitely works.
You can win World War II with a wildly divergent group, as long as they agree on the war part.
You can form America.
The United States is a country of wildly divergent views.
That works. But have you ever seen a small group?
A small group with wildly divergent views that got something done.
My understanding is the best case scenario for a small group is a bunch of average people with one leader who's really good.
That tends to work because it's the leader who just gets their way but has the advantage of lots of voices to modify the leader's opinion.
But usually the leader is the smartest person.
Well, not always, but in terms of informal leadership, not necessarily organizational leadership.
The smartest person tends to have a little more influence, because people go, oh, what do you think?
You're the smartest. So, small groups of people, I don't know.
And then somebody said to me, Scott, he didn't say he would take their opinions.
To which I said, oh, okay.
I'm okay with that. You know, if all he does is listen to them, that works.
Now, let me offer a way that this could work.
The small group of wildly differing people could say, maybe, and maybe Elon Musk knows this is what's going to happen, they could say, we shouldn't ban anything unless we're unanimous.
Then you'd have something.
Then you'd have something.
We won't ban anything, unless it's unanimous, among a wildly divergent bunch of opinions.
If one person says this should be allowed, that's free speech.
In fact, I don't even know if you could define it better.
Find me a more functional description of free speech than a wildly divergent group of people with different opinions all say, or at least one of them says it should be allowed.
If even one person says it should be loud, should it be loud?
It's an interesting question, isn't it?
I feel like yes.
I feel like one yes is enough to keep it.
But if you had a wildly divergent group, wouldn't they say everything stays?
Would they say everything stays?
Remember, they're wildly divergent.
So would they allow tweets to say, we should round up and murder all of the, I'm not going to fill in the name of the group, right?
Do you think that the wildly divergent group would allow somebody to say, we should round up this group and kill them?
Well, that would be against the terms of service.
So that's easy, right?
Hate speech. So they wouldn't even have to make a decision on that one.
Because the terms of service would take care of it.
And nobody really argues.
I don't think people argue about that level of hate speech in your terms of service.
That seems like a reasonable business standard.
So, there are two possibilities with this wildly divergent group.
One is a perfect outcome, which is, Elon says, if you can't agree, I make the decision.
That's perfect. And if you do agree, I'm really going to take that as serious.
I'd be okay with that.
Would you? Would you be okay as long as Musk makes the decision and he's got a really tough standard about what's going to influence him from this group?
I'd be okay with that.
Because the problem is you can't get a perfect system.
No such thing as a perfect system.
Now, what's the problem with this system?
What happens when somebody replaces Elon Musk in that job?
Because that's going to happen someday.
What happens then?
Well, then you're down to trusting that one person again.
So there's some risk, but I don't have a better idea.
So if we're living in the real world where the best idea has to win, not a perfect idea, it might be the best idea.
It might be. But that doesn't make it not material for a Dilbert comic.
If the story had said, I'm not going to believe them or follow them unless it's unanimous, then I couldn't make it into a Dilbert comic.
You know that, right? Think about that.
If the additional part of the story, which didn't happen, but it could, said, I'm not going to ban anybody unless it's unanimous, I couldn't make fun of that.
Could I? There would be no place to go with that.
And that's why when Musk says the standard for Tesla is that if it would appear in a Dilbert comic, you know, maybe rethink it.
It's not a good idea. If you just tell me you're going to have a wildly divergent council, that's definitely going to be a Dilbert comic.
If you tell me you're not going to listen to them unless they're unanimous, and it's about free speech, where you really, really want to be careful, then I don't have anything.
Because that just sounds like a pretty good system to me.
I don't know if it'll work. Maybe it works.
Maybe it doesn't. But I wouldn't mock it as an idea.
As an idea, it's sensible.
Right? Twitter user Roly Poly had this thought.
What happens when Musk combines Neuralink and Twitter?
And was that part of the play?
I mean, did he ever think to himself, you know...
Someday I might have this Neuralink thing embedded in my house.
I'm worried that the way I would use it is that whenever I'm in a bad mood, it will automatically tweet insults at people.
You know, I'd just be like thinking and insulting.
I really hate that guy.
And all of a sudden the tweet would pop out.
I don't know. It could be fun. I doubt that's a big part of his strategy, but when you own Neuralink and you own Twitter, I feel like they might be able to work together.
You know, think of the things that Musk does that do work together.
Do you think the boring company that bores tunnels, do you think that has anything to do with Mars?
I do. Because I feel like living on Mars would require a lot of tunneling.
I don't know. And at least see what's under the ground so you know if there was previous civilizations and stuff.
Now, it'd be pretty tough to get a boring machine to Mars, and of course it couldn't work on gas, right?
So how would the boring machine work if it's on Mars?
It'd have to be battery batteries.
So he's making the batteries, he's making the tunneling machine, he's going to Mars.
Probably need to do a lot of underground stuff on Mars because of the harshness of the atmosphere.
I don't know. It feels like it all fits together.
Carrie Lake dunked on Chaney.
Liz Chaney? Is that her name?
Is her first name Liz? Do I have the right Cheney?
It's Liz, right? Lizard.
So Liz Cheney was raising money to do ads trying to beat Cary Lake, who were in the same party, interestingly enough, but Cheney's becoming more of an anti-Republican.
And here's what Carrie Lake said, because apparently she used it for her own fundraising.
And she said, thank you for your generous, in-kind contribution to my campaign, your recent television ad.
And she went on saying that basically it all worked in her favor, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But she thinks it'll add another 10 points to their lead.
But here's the part that I loved.
So she closes out her opinion by saying, I know America, she talks about, thank you again for the huge boo store campaign.
Enjoy your forced retirement from politics, because Cheney's already been defeated, Lake concluded.
And she said, I know America will rest easier, knowing that one more warmonger is out of office.
And I thought to myself, warmonger?
Warmonger is a really good political insult.
Warmonger. Who wants to vote for a warmonger?
That really kind of sticks, doesn't it?
It seems kind of sticky.
Warmonger. Is there some news about yay?
I see somebody mentioning yay.
Did something happen with yay?
Any news? I didn't see anything today.
Let me know if I missed something.
So, Carrie Lake continues to be the most dangerous politician out there.
Somebody asked if this was an example of agreeing and amplifying, or matching and amplifying.
It is not. It's more of an example of satire or sarcasm.
What do you think Twitter should do, as it's looking to tweak its features, do you think it should get rid of all anonymous accounts?
How should it treat fully anonymous accounts?
Here's my opinion.
My opinion is that anonymous accounts should be allowed, but you should have the option to not see them.
Or to, you should have an option of making them show at the bottom of your comment feed.
You know, if I could include them, but include them at the bottom of my comment feed, optionally, right?
So it'd be my choice whether I see them or not.
It's not Twitter's choice.
I'd be okay with that. Yeah, so I think Musk wants a...
Choose your own experience kind of Twitter, where you just have an option of what kind of goodness and badness you want to experience.
That works for me.
Yeah, that works for me.
But it is true that a lot of them are just bad people.
They're just bad people.
Two sniffs and an exhale.
There we go. Feels good.
Oh, yeah. Scott, people are not F you rich.
We need them. Yeah, we need anonymous people who need to stay anonymous.
I agree. But I mostly don't want to see them.
I mostly don't want to see them.
All right. I think...
No. Isn't it two inhales and one exhale?
Do I have it backwards? I see somebody fact-checking me on the Huberman method.
I think I've seen it both ways.
I think I've seen...
Yeah, I've seen it both ways.
I think maybe Wim Hof has the opposite.
I think the Huberman method and the Wim Hof are opposite.
Now, here's why I say that I think that the active part is the exhale.
All right? In my opinion, the exhale is the active part.
And that people don't, when you breathe shallowly, when you breathe shallowly, when your breath is shallow, you don't exhale the, you know, the bad air that's been hanging around.
I feel like the exhaling is the part that makes a difference, right?
So every one of these other ways, from meditation to exercise to breathing methods, I think the only part you have to get right Is a frequent good exhale.
Who's with me? It's the exhale that makes the difference.
Andrew Whale also says that.
Yeah. Because you can't avoid inhaling.
Inhaling is optional. I'm sorry.
Exhaling fully is optional.
Inhaling is not really optional.
You're going to do that anyway.
Andrew Whale does agree.
Okay. Yeah, breathing's probably the whole thing.
So if you get your breathing right and you get your mushrooms if you need them, you're going to be in good shape.
Good, good shape. All right.
Have I met my test?
I've made you all healthier.
I've helped your anxiety.
I have helped your overall health.
I've helped you with decisions on flu shots.
I've helped you with, if you know somebody on serious depression, you know what will work for that.
And I've given you a story to make you smart with the hamburger helper.
And I've made you smarter than the people that you'll be talking to on Thanksgiving.
Did you get your money's worth?
Right? You got your money's worth?
I think so. Truly sensational.
And we had some laughs as well.
I believe this is the most useful livestream in the history of all livestreams.
Somebody says, brag much?
Henry, the people with damaged egos, you need to spend more time here because I can help you with that.
It's okay for people to be successful and even talk about it.
And Henry, should you be successful is something.
I'd love to hear about it.
And I'm not going to tell you that you're bragging.
Because when you do something well, you should tell people.
The world is not worse for that.
The world is better for that.
You don't have to be a jerk, but tell us what you got right, tell us what you got wrong, and then we know who you are.
And we know how to deal with the next thing you say.
So ranking my own success and failures is an integral part of what I do.
I will be bragging more, not less.
And I will be also admitting when I'm wrong, hopefully more, in terms of the admitting it part.
Hope I'm not wrong more.
So I'm going to do more of what you say I should do less of.
Ignore jury solution.
The jury solution.
What was it? Remind me again.
The jury solution.
J-U-R-Y. What was that?
Was that breathing as well?
Hoax monger.
Hoax monger.
That's not bad. Oh, he calls his technique the physiological sigh.
Yeah, you know, here's what I found.
I found that when you do the exhale, the one that makes the difference, I find it helps to allow my body to lean into it and just let all my muscles go with it.
Like actually just collapse your muscles.
Just let everything go.
That feels like that's what makes the difference.
Japanese free divers are all about the deep exhale, okay?
