Episode 1917 Scott Adams: Everyone Is Crazy. It Must Be Time For The Midterms. Let's Sort It All Out
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
What midterm democrats did right and wrong
John Fetterman's new campaign ad
Extreme election result delays?
AOC flirts with Elon Musk
Massive Twitter layoffs today
Kyrie Irving's statement of apology
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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
Well, I'm sure you've been doing your breathing exercises.
Remember, every time you pick up your phone, that's your key, your trigger, to remember to breathe.
All right. Now, how would you like to take it up to levels never seen before in any Live stream ever.
I know you do. And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a plaza, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
It's the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the Simultaneous Sip and it happens now.
Go. Yep, that was everything I thought it would be.
Wait, wait, hold on.
And a little bit more, and a little bit more.
Do you know the secret to happiness?
Let me give you the secret to happiness.
You should consistently expect a little bit less than you're probably going to get.
Then you'll always be amazed.
My God! I wasn't expecting that.
I'm surprised again.
What? I got paid again this week?
My dog likes me still?
No! No way!
I thought she'd hate me by now.
Gotta set that bar low.
Well, here's some tiny news that might be gigantic news.
I like to catch the news early, when it's small news, before it becomes big news.
An international team, a bunch of people in Tel Aviv University figured out how to make wheat that doesn't rust.
Now, you might say to yourself, I didn't know wheat rusted in the first place.
But don't admit that.
Do not admit that.
What you want to say is, really?
The rust problem with wheat.
Yeah, that's a big one.
Because it turns out it is a big problem.
It's a gigantic problem.
But if you could make wheat that did not rust, your yield would go way up.
Why is that important? Well, we might be running low on fertilizer, so wouldn't it be nice to have, you know, some balancing effect on that?
And yes, your wheat in the future will not rust.
Until the left protests the artificially created genetic product, and then we all die of starvation.
But don't think of that.
Don't think of that. Or if you do think of that, that's the key to success.
Just imagine everything's going to be bad, and then when you wake up tomorrow and everything's fine, you'd be like, whoa!
See? It's a theme.
How many of you saw what Ye tweeted about an exchange he had with his personal trainer?
Did anybody see that?
So apparently Ye has sort of a celebrity personal trainer.
And it's the same trainer that I think Kim Kardashian was using or does use or something.
But anyway, this personal trainer has a close connection to the family.
For having trained both Ye and Kim, and other people too.
If you'd like to know how good he is as a trainer, he has also trained Lizzo.
So he's reportedly also Lizzo's trainer.
So you know he's good. What?
What? Oh, you're all terrible.
You're terrible.
You're terrible. You're doing your own jokes in your head now.
Can you wait for me to do the jokes?
Let me do the jokes.
You don't have to do them in your head.
No. All right.
But anyway, I read this exchange, and if it's real, which I think you always have to ask today, right?
Remember, if you see something in the news that your first reaction is, how in the world could that be real?
It probably isn't. It probably isn't real.
Like 95% of the time it isn't.
But I'll tell you, this one sort of looks real.
If I had to make a bet on the 5%, you know, the ones that, like, blow your mind, but it actually turns out to be real, this might be one.
Because I don't know that there's anything about Ye that would suggest he would make up a tweet.
Like make up a message and pretend somebody said it?
That would feel completely out of character, right?
There's no history of that.
So I think it's real, but let me tell you what he said.
Apparently, I think the trainer might be Jewish.
I think that's the context.
You'll have to give me a little fact check on this, because I'm a little sketchy on the story.
But the trainer was upset with Ye and wanted some kind of an apology for the Jewish people.
I think that's the story.
And ended up actually threatening Ye in a message, and that's what Ye tweeted.
And this is a personal trainer.
Just try to hold this in your head.
This is a personal trainer talking to Ye, who's, you know, multi-billionaire.
I'm not sure if he still is, but he had a bad week.
But this is just the personal trainer talking to Ye.
Just imagine this. Hold this in your head.
That the personal trainer said this to Ye.
You have two choices.
One is you can have a loving conversation with me, and I think the context would be his impact on the Jewish community with his recent comments.
So you can have a loving conversation with me, or the personal trainer gives Ye the second option.
Or I have you institutionalized again, where they medicate the crap out of you and you go back to zombie land forever.
Play date with the kids just won't be the same.
What? Did that actually happen?
Did, first of all, what does he mean again?
I have you institutionalized again?
Is he again referring to the fact that Yeh was once under medical care?
Or is he saying that he's the person who had him institutionalized?
Did the personal trader have him institutionalized?
Does he have that kind of power?
What kind of Svengali-like, or whatever, power, Rasputin power, does this trader have over the Kardashian and, you know, West household.
This is weird.
I don't really understand what's going on here, do you?
So it looks like maybe this personal trainer is like a bigger part of the overall story.
Maybe. Maybe.
I mean, it's a little confusing.
But do people really talk to Ye like that?
I've never talked to anybody like that.
Have you ever made a direct threat of that kind to, like, an adult?
I mean, that's a very, very unusual way to talk to another adult without getting your fucking ass kicked, right?
Like, I can't even imagine saying that.
And if somebody ever said this to you, then reportedly they had a long conversation after this, would you ever have a conversation with somebody who had said this to you even once?
I don't know about you, but I'm an absolutist.
When I'm done with somebody, I'm completely done.
There's no comeback after that.
I mean, how do you ever talk to this guy again?
Oh my God. Anyway, how many of you are following Andrew Huberman?
He's getting a lot of play on social media lately.
Jordan Peterson's talked to him.
Joe Rogan's talked to him.
I think Lex Friedman's talked to him.
So those are the big ones.
So I was listening to some of what he was saying.
I didn't catch all of his content, but I caught a lot of it when he was talking to Jordan Peterson.
And here was my takeaway.
Here's the good news.
It turns out that there's science that backs up everything I've been telling you for years.
Good news for me, I suppose.
But my book had a feel in almost everything and still went big.
It has a lot of assertions in it about the best way to run your life, such as, systems are better than goals.
It turns out that almost everything I said, from take small steps and learn how to be successful at something, and let that extend into the rest of your life, basically everything.
Everything I've told you is scientifically backed by the dopamine feedback system.
But here are some of the little things he said that I thought are worth calling out.
He mentioned that if you set yourself a goal...
And here I'm not going to get too detailed about what's better, a system or a goal.
Because even if you have a system, the system does have a generic goal.
The goal might be being wealthy, as opposed to being wealthy in a specific way.
But still, there's some idea of a direction you're going, whether you have a system or a goal.
And apparently the dopamine system and your brain's plasticity, if you have a specific direction, your brain will change.
It will actually reprogram itself to give you rewards when you're doing something that moves you in the direction of your larger ambitions.
That's just the way it's supposed to be.
Now, I've been telling you that, think of what I've been teaching you.
I told you that having a system so that you could get rewarded every time you did the right thing, Was what you wanted to focus on, and not the specific goal for a number of different reasons.
But that you want to find a way that you can get rewarded by the thing you do every day, not waiting five years for your goal maybe to succeed or not.
And it turns out that's exactly what you should be doing.
You should have your idea where you're going, but when you do anything that gets you closer to it, that should be a dopamine reward.
So you focus on the system, get your dopamine reward.
Just what I've been telling you.
Also, if you can't do a big thing, do whatever is the smallest thing you can do to control.
How many times have I told you that?
That if you can't do the big thing, do the smallest thing you can do that you're able to do.
And then when you succeed, what happens?
You get dopamine. Every time you do something that you intend to do, You get a little kick.
I mean, you might not notice it, but it's there.
And it's the operating system that controls everything you do.
So if you're not managing your dopamine system correctly, you're not optimizing.
So basically, Huberman tells you the science for optimizing your whole dopamine situation, from everything from breathing to how you think about your life and where you're going.
And it's all compatible with things that I've been telling you.
So it's good to know that there's...
Oh, the other thing you said is that your dopamine system will make it easy to learn Easier to learn, so you could rapidly learn, if you have a goal, and the thing you're learning gets you closer to the goal.
Did you know that? Did you know that your brain literally makes it easier to learn if you're on target for something that was meaningful to you?
Now, I heard that, and the first thing I thought was, don't get ahead of me.
Don't get ahead of me.
I think I know where you're going there.
I heard that and I said, really?
That is amazing. You tell me that the brain can actually reconfigure itself in real time, I mean rapidly, to give you a reward for learning something that's relevant to your goal.
And I thought, my god, that's like, I really learned something here.
And then I said to myself, wait a minute, is there anybody who doesn't know it's easier to learn something that matters?
Did you have the same experience I just had?
Which is I thought I'd learned something amazing.
And then I thought, oh, basically 100% of the world already knows it's easier to learn something that matters.
And something that doesn't matter to you at all is harder to learn.
I feel like I knew that.
Didn't you kind of know that?
Yeah, survival, blah, blah, blah.
Pretty obvious. But it's good to know that there's a whole bunch of interesting science about how to rewire your brain for success and happiness, and that it's compatible with everything I've been telling you for years.
The most interesting part is that, although he's a science guy, He gave some credit, sort of, I don't know how to phrase this exactly right, because I don't want to mischaracterize his opinion, but he said that if you were thinking about, let's say, that book, The Secret, where you think about what you want to happen, or affirmations, where you write down what you want to happen, or intentions, those are the three things he named.
Intentions is, again, where you put your intention into the universe, So you have a clear direction, and then things happen.
And he's saying that when you do those things, your brain actually turns into the machine that can give it to you.
Now, that's my interpretation.
If you have a clear direction of where you want to go, your brain will become a machine that can take you there.
Again, he didn't use those words, but that's paraphrasing.
It's kind of cool, isn't it?
And it's also what I've been telling you forever.
Now, this gets away from the woo-woo magical part of affirmations, where I take you.
So I take you further than that.
I definitely understand that affirmations tune your mind, and I've told you that, right?
Reticular activation, you know, it tunes your mind.
But on top of that, there's something about affirmations that is not fully explained, yet, by science.
There's something observational or anecdotal or experiential about it that seems to exceed that domain.
But, you know, I guess that's to be discovered in the future.
Alright, there's a lot of news.
I'll go fast here. Alright, this is horrible and funny at the same time.
Can he handle that? This is a horrible tragedy, but the way it's described is funny, and I I can't apologize.
Because if I apologized, I would be lying, and that's not a good apology, right?
I'm just going to be like a normal human and see if you can deal with that.
I'm pretty sure you can.
All right. I swear this is a horrible tragedy, and I shouldn't be laughing at it.
I'm going to try not to.
All right, the first thing you need to know is that all news that comes out of the Ukraine war situation is not believable, right?
Can we start with that?
Because I know there's going to be a comment in five seconds.
Why does Scott always believe everything the Ukrainians say?
I don't. I'm simply going to tell you the story and you can decide whether it sounds true to you or not.
To be frank, it doesn't sound true.
If I had to bet on it, it sounds a little exaggerated to me, but it's funny.
It goes like this.
The Russian conscripts are reportedly so poorly trained, they got like two weeks of training in digging ditches, mostly, and went to the firing range twice, and that was their whole training.
They pushed them out there with not enough food or weapons.
And here's the report.
I think this was from the New York Post.
The conscripts report back home.
Somehow they can communicate back home.
I don't even know how they're doing that, but somehow they do.
And the people back home in Russia are reporting that the conscripts are saying, So the Russian transcripts which they've rushed to the front...
Are laying on the ground and pretending to be dead.
Because that's their best military strategy.
That's all they have.
And I'm not even joking.
Because, you know, your best military strategy at minimum is to survive, right?
I mean, unless it's a suicide mission, which this is not.
So they need to survive.
So that is a military requirement, a mission, right?
To survive. And the conscripts have decided, perhaps not wrong, that the best way they can survive is to just lay in a field and pretend to be dead until the war is over.
Because they think the drones are so omnipresent that the Ukrainian drones are just watching them all the time and, you know, if they move in Arab, they'll be shot by the drone somehow.
Somebody says it's BS because the drones have thermal imaging.
I don't know, maybe. Possible words.
Now, alright, give me your opinion.
This doesn't sound true, does it?
I do believe that maybe somebody played dad, you know, on some occasion.
That makes sense. In a war, people are always playing dad, so that's not unusual.
But do you think it's like what the conscripts are doing?
Like, they're all walking out, and as soon as their commander turns around, they're like...
As soon as nobody's watching, they just...
I don't think it's happening.
I don't think it's happening, but it's pretty hilarious as a report.
But again, I don't think it's true.
All right. You know, this is a...
Let me give you a little lesson on writing humor.
If you can write humor that requires the listener or the viewer to complete the story in their head, it's always funnier.
So the image I have in my head of these conscripts is sort of the little movie that I've made on my own.
It's not like yours. But the one in my head is hilarious.
Like, the one in my head is really funny.
Like, you're all having a different movie in your head, so yours will be different.
But in theory, in theory, if I did it right, the movie that you're playing in your head is just as funny as mine, but it's like the one that works for you, because you're the one that made it.
So that's perfect humor if everybody writes their own punchline, like they're doing the visual in their own head.
That's as good as you could get for a punchline.
All right, Rasmussen is reporting that the last poll they do before the midterms about the generic lead of one versus the other shows the lead is narrowed to five points from last week.
But that lead jumps up and down, so it doesn't mean much directionally.
But the GOP is five points ahead according to the generic ballot.
Now, question to you.
How predictive is the generic Republican against a generic Democrat poll?
What does that tell you about the actual results?
How accurate do you think that's going to be?
It's not exactly a straight line, cause and effect kind of thing, right?
Just to give you an example, as Rasmussen says, in 2018, so right before the Democrats won a big House majority, the polling was a statistical dead heat.
So, you know, in 2018, it said it was a dead heat, and then the results were quite different.
Now, how many of you would be surprised if the Democrats actually have a big win in the midterms?
How many would be surprised?
I know what you're going to say because you're expecting cheating, right?
But how many would be surprised?
Okay, I would not be.
I would not be surprised.
Because remember how we got surprised in 2020?
Because there were things that changed that we didn't know about, or I didn't know about.
So I didn't know about, you know, Attorney Mark Goliath and what Mark Zuckerberg did, and I didn't know what would be the impact of, you know, the different voting mechanisms and laws and changes and all that.
I didn't know. And those things may have been definitive.
That might have made the difference.
I think we have the same problem this time.
Problem number one, I don't know if polls are as useful as they used to be.
So the accuracy of any polls is in question.
Would you agree? Because we have polls that are pretty far apart going right into the election.
So if you have lots of polls and they're all over the place, what are you going to do with that?
So it's possible that the polls have told us nothing, right?
It's possible that the polls don't tell you anything.
It's possible, but I have no evidence of this, that one team or the other would try to cheat.
Thank you.
Might get away with it.
Who knows what that would do.
Then there's the turnout question.
Midterms are always a turnout race, right?
Whoever has the best turnout wins.
I don't know. Who do you think is going to have the best turnout?
I've heard Republicans are more enthusiastic, but what do you think?
Let me tell you what the Democrats did right and wrong at the same time.
When they said, hey, abortion's going to be a big issue, they immediately did two things.
They said, let's make it a big issue, but also let's solve it so it's not as big an issue.
So at the same time they're trying to make it a political issue, they're doing an excellent job of arranging transportation so that you can go to a state where you can get an abortion and get back.
That sort of takes the urgency away from it, doesn't it?
Because if you're not actually immediately in the stage of needing an abortion, that extra inconvenience doesn't feel as big.
If you actually need an abortion, it feels gigantic, I'm sure.
But on a conceptual level, if you said to yourself, hey, they can't take our abortion away from us, but then you realize you can still get an abortion, all you have to do is cross the state line, in many cases, then it doesn't feel like an emergency, it feels like a huge inconvenience.
Would you agree? That the Democrats have made it their issue at the same time they solve the issue.
You can't have both.
Now, I think they had to try to solve the issue from their perspective.
They couldn't write it out and make it an issue.
But they really degraded their own issue by doing a fairly effective job of making sure people knew they had some options.
I don't know how well it works, but some options.
So, alright.
Have you heard, I think Black Lives Matter has said this, and a lot of black leaders have said this, I heard Hawk Newsom said this, that one thing that black Americans need, and are really asking for, is financial education.
Now, the reason I'm saying that BLM is asking for it is it sounds racist if I say it.
Yeah, you have to know it's not white people telling black people they need to be educated.
That's not what's happening.
It's everybody understanding that there's a knowledge gap that should be filled in.
So, here's a hypothetical for you.
Suppose Republicans started offering free financial education for black Americans.
Just free. Just sign up.
Could be online, could be in person, whatever.
It's just free. And it teaches you personal finance.
Personal finance.
And then, well, you don't have to target it at the black population.
You should target it at everybody who needs it.
But you could market it as something that's extra useful for one group.
I think you could get away with that.
But, all right, now, if you were going to give them personal financial information, I think you'd spend a little bit of time with the macro stuff, like the big country-level economics, and you would probably teach them about capitalism.
You'd probably teach them about free markets.
You'd probably teach them the difference between capitalism and socialism.
A little bit of history.
You don't have to go too far.
And you'd say, well, you know, a system that's built on incentives will work.
A system that's built on poor incentives will work less.
And you give them just the basic information of what a free market is, why we have them, what's good about it, and what's bad about it.
Now, I wouldn't sugarcoat it.
I would say that this will definitely give you some billionaires and some poor people.
Like, it's an imperfect system.
So you don't have to hide the truth about it, but just a real, genuine, useful financial education.
Do you know what would happen?
They would all become Republicans.
They would all become Republicans.
The Republican Party can convert as many people as they need.
Because the black population is asking for this specific education, and if it were received, they would turn Republican.
Because everybody does.
I don't think there are any Democrats who understand economics and are still Democrats.
Okay, that's an exaggeration.
There are plenty of Democrats that are sort of in the middle who totally understand economics.
Let me be a little more unbiased.
But the progressive wing...
Don't understand economics at all.
At all. And one part of that, the group, one part of Democrats that don't understand economics but is telling you that, they're saying, we don't understand this, can you please, you know, this would help us a lot.
Well, why not provide it?
Why not give it to them?
And I would say that in terms of systemic racism, this is one of the biggest things that Republicans could fix.
If you ask me, name your biggest sources, well, education would be first.
But a specific part of education where systemic racism is really, really real is just the continuation of the legacy of slavery.
If you don't live in a family that knows how to handle money, how are you going to learn?
But if you're born into a family that already has money and knows how to manage it, you're probably just going to pick it up by osmosis.
So if you could break that cycle where every black kid who's born in 2023, let's say, if you say, okay, every black kid born in 2023, as well as every poor kid of any kind, is going to get a basic financial education.
Everyone. That's the one thing we're not going to get wrong.
You know, you could get everything else wrong, but every black kid is going to get a financial education with everybody else.
What would that do?
That would change a lot, wouldn't it?
I think it would. Alright, and that's where people could easily come together.
All right.
How many of you saw the Fetterman ad?
So Fetterman has an ad now just days before the election in which it's a takeoff on a '70s Pepsi commercial where mean Joe Green was walking through the tunnel after a game and there's some little kid who offers him a, is it a Coke?
Oh, offers him a Coke.
So it's a Coke commercial, not a Pepsi commercial.
So offers him a Coke, and there's this moment where, you know, mean Joe Green, this scary big guy, and a little kid have a moment.
It was a famous commercial.
Well, let me tell you what's wrong with the Fetterman ad.
Everything? Everything.
Everything is wrong with his ad.
He didn't do a single thing right.
It doesn't look good.
It doesn't say a message.
Most people who are young aren't going to remember the commercial, so they'll be completely confused.
And here's the worst part.
It starts with him apparently looking like he's exhausted from knocking on doors and campaigning.
I think that's what they're trying to say.
But instead, it shows him barely able to walk, leaning against the wall, like...
And then he's knocking on a random person's door looking like Frankenstein's monster.
He actually created a video where he looks like Frankenstein's monster trying to break into your house.
Now, did nobody look at that commercial and say, "Yeah, I know we spent a lot of money making this, and the money's already gone.
That's sort of a sunk cost sort of thing you would teach a Democrat about sunk costs.
They don't understand them.
Maybe even though you paid for the commercial and you put in a lot of time, maybe you don't air it.
Maybe don't. How in the world did anybody look at that commercial and say, green light, How in the world?
You have to see it to know how bad it is.
Now, if you haven't seen the commercial, you're probably saying to yourself, there's probably a little recording playing, I know, when you see commercials on the other team, they often look weak.
This isn't that.
This is not that.
This is a commercial so bad that 100% of Democrats, I think, I think 100% would look at it and say, oh, maybe you shouldn't have done that.
I don't think there's anybody on his team who would say that worked.
Nobody. It might be the worst ad I've ever seen.
Would you agree? Have you ever seen a worse, more, let's say, more damaging cell phone ad of all time?
I think it's the king. I don't think you can do more than that.
Alright, here's something that really happened that it's so mind-boggling that we can't wrap our heads around it, which is why you can't act on it.
Have you ever had those situations where there's something that's true and it's important, but it's so big, you just can't, you don't know what to do.
You can't deal with it.
So apparently Biden gives this big speech, was it yesterday or the other day, in which instead of talking about all of his accomplishments and all the good things that Democrats have done and why you should vote for them in the midterm, he focused on how MAGA will destroy democracy.
And also said, you know, we might have to wait days for the ballots to be counted, all the while knowing that other countries don't need to do that.
Israel would be a perfect example.
Other countries don't need to do that.
And we should unquestionably accept the results, of course.
Of course, when the results are come in, he's telling us in advance we should accept it.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, is he not telling you that they plan to rig the election?
Now, let me be clear.
I don't have proof of that.
So I don't have any proof.
But that's what I heard.
That's what I heard.
Now, this is how communication works, right?
The way communication works is that the speaker must make some assumptions about the listener.
Like, what does the listener already know?
What is their context?
Because you always organize your talk Your communication by what the person already knows, so you don't have to tell them what they already know.
You have the new thing. Am I wrong to interpret this as he just told us that they're going to cheat and we better not complain?
Now, I'm not saying that that's going to happen.
That's a different statement. I'm not saying it's going to happen.
I'm saying he told us it's going to happen.
That part, which is different than it's going to happen, right?
I'm only talking about what he's talking about.
I'm not talking about what might or might not happen in the real world.
I'm saying that the President of the United States just told us that they're going to rig the election and he doesn't want you complaining about it.
That's what I heard. That's what I heard.
Did you hear anything different?
And I don't think it's because I'm all suspicious.
Is it? I think this is just the way words work.
It's the way communication is designed to work.
Just like this.
I don't know how, I can't even think of another way to interpret it.
Can you? I see no other way to interpret that.
And if it's telling us exactly what it looks like, there are two possibilities.
Am I right? Possibility number one is that they're actually going to rig the election and they're priming us for it.
That would be terrible.
But option number two is worse.
Option number two is that we have a sitting president who doesn't know.
He just told the country that he's signaling the election will be rigged.
Which one of those do you choose?
Do you choose the one where things are so bad he just told you they're going to rig the election and you better not complain?
That would be awful!
But not as awful as having a sitting president who doesn't know he just told the country that the election is going to be rigged and they better not complain about it, if it's not true.
Those are both really, really bad.
And they're both so bad, I can't wrap my head around it.
Do you feel the same thing?
Whichever of those two interpretations you take, they're both so bad, I don't know what to do about it.
I don't know what to say about it.
I don't know what to suggest.
I don't know what to recommend.
I'm just sort of shocked into inaction.
I just go, uh, uh, I don't know what to do.
So that's happening. Here's something that I think the Democrats might be sensitive to.
Would you say this is true or false?
Democrats compared to Republicans are more concerned about how they look to other people.
True or false? I realize this is like a gross generalization, right?
So all gross generalizations don't apply to any individual, I think.
But it does seem like the whole wokeness thing It is about making sure that we appear to each other in the best way.
Whereas a Republican attitude would be more like, if you don't like it, fuck you.
Am I right? I mean, very general kind of a difference.
You know, it doesn't apply to every person.
So if that's true, if you can take that as a stipulated truth, Then I think that Republicans are missing a huge lever for manipulating Democrats, which is that you can manipulate Democrats on their embarrassment.
Democrats don't like to be embarrassed and they don't like to look bad.
Democrats, I'm sorry, Republicans, they don't care so much.
You want to see my impression of a Republican who doesn't care what you think about?
I'm not a Republican, but I'll give you my impression of a Republican who doesn't give a fuck what you think about him.
Here it is. Turn on the music.
I'm going to dance. All right.
How was that? If you're listening, that was me giving my best impression of air guitar and a white man dancing at a barbecue.
Republicans are just not embarrassed.
I don't think so.
They just don't have that gene.
So here's how I would use embarrassment if I were using it as a weapon.
So this is just a lesson on persuasion, okay?
If you can find some psychological element of the other team that you're trying to influence, maybe you can push that because it won't come back at you if your team doesn't respond the same way to embarrassment.
But here's the thing.
How embarrassed would you be if you'd been a Democrat supporter for the past two years?
Have you noticed that there are no Biden signs anywhere?
Anybody notice that?
Because there must have been some during the election in 2020, but did everybody scrape them off their car?
Have you ever seen a Biden bumper sticker in the last 12 months?
Because they must have scraped them all off the car, right?
I think they hid the shirts.
I think it should be embarrassing at this point because Democrats, here's their message for the midterm.
There are many imaginary problems that you can ignore.
So according to Democrats, these problems are either exaggerated or imaginary.
Crime? It's all in your head.
Inflation? That's just oxygen.
Everybody has inflation.
Immigration? No problem.
Schools hurting kids in a variety of ways?
Change the subject.
Election integrity? Don't you dare!
The Democrats' main focus is literally on imaginary problems.
Now, you don't think that the Democrats have noticed?
Because no matter what your opinion is of Democrats, they do have the same IQ as Republicans, roughly speaking.
You know that, right? There's not that much of a difference.
I don't know if there's any difference.
And I don't even know which way the difference would go.
But... Democrats, on average, are roughly as intelligent as everybody else.
You don't think that they notice that their team is focusing on things that even they can tell are imaginary, or they're treating as imaginary things that are clearly real, like crime and inflation and so on.
But instead, the Democrats are focusing on these following issues, which they believe are real.
The risk of insurrection by men wearing bison hats.
That's like the main focus of the Democrats, is the risk that the country will be overthrown by even more people wearing bison hats who are unarmed.
They also, of course, the entire platform was launched on the fine people hoax, the idea that Trump had once called neo-Nazis fine people, Which literally never happened.
They also are very concerned about the insufficient masking and vaccinations because they're pretty sure those things will make a big difference to your well-being.
They're concerned that there's not enough wokeness, and if we could have more wokeness and more attention on pronouns, things in this country would be a lot better.
They're concerned that there's too much capitalism, a little too much capitalism in free markets, and that the United States creates too much energy and keeps us too safe.
How is that not embarrassing?
Seriously. That isn't embarrassing?
When you see the President and Fetterman representing your party as two of the most important people in your party at the moment, That doesn't embarrass you.
Now, I know what the NPCs would say.
They would say, Scott, were you not embarrassed by Trump?
To which I say, Trump was different.
Trump was, I'll call it an acquired taste.
You could love him or you could hate him, but I don't think people were embarrassed too much.
Right? Because even if it did something that made you turn away from him, which a lot of people did, you still weren't embarrassed because you liked the things he did up until that point.
You might be, well, I liked him on immigration, but oh, he said that thing, and I'm out, whatever.
But I don't think embarrassed would be the right word.
But I think the Democrats have a right to be embarrassed.
Don't you? Let me just check in with you.
Am I right...
That if you push the embarrassment button on the Democrats, that they would feel it themselves.
It's a little bit embarrassing.
They said they were going to save the country from a liar.
Just think about that.
The Democrats said, we're going to get rid of the liar.
And they gave us Biden.
That's not embarrassing?
That's not embarrassing.
Really? That should be embarrassing.
Because it's not like you weren't warned.
There was no warning whatsoever that Biden might be a huge liar.
You didn't see anything coming that would tip you off.
You should be embarrassed that you didn't see that coming.
Now, if you voted for Trump, and then Trump said some provocative things that made you uncomfortable, would you be embarrassed, or would you say to yourself, well, that's what I voted for?
I did vote for that.
So, you know, I like the good stuff.
Maybe I don't like the mean tweets.
But I knew what I was getting.
Nobody surprised me.
But I feel like the Democrats are acting surprised.
What? Biden is lying to me?
What? All right.
Well, I think...
Let me check in on this, too.
Is my overall theme accurate that the Democrats are focusing on imaginary problems?
They do focus on imaginary problems.
Or exaggerated, you know, imaginary is sort of a, you know...
All right, well, okay.
Looks like you agree.
Some Republican entity created a TV ad claiming that the Democrats, well specifically Biden and Harris, are anti-white.
And they give specific examples.
COVID relief that was based on race.
College admissions, affirmative action, right?
So they have specific examples which are somewhat unambiguous.
Nobody would argue the examples, because those are just on the record.
It's not even an opinion. And apparently, I saw how Cernovich, I think it was Cernovich in a tweet, saying that the Democrats are saying that's unfair, like that crosses the line or goes too far.
What line does that cross?
Does that go too far?
I don't know if I can say it on YouTube, but I could certainly say it on Twitter now.
Doesn't that feel good? Doesn't it feel good to know that you can say stuff on Twitter without getting cancelled?
But the Democrats are clearly anti-white.
Would anybody disagree with that?
They're anti-white and anti-male.
The Democrats...
Are anti-white and anti-male.
That's their primary theme.
Everything else is like subsidiary to those two things, I think.
At least it feels like it.
So I can say that out loud, right?
I can say that the Democrats are racist against white people, and primarily white males, I suppose.
Yeah, we could just say that now, I think.
So I'm glad that that bit of free speech has returned.
Let's talk about Elon Musk, who is interesting in at least three different ways just today.
I'll tell you, Musk is filling the void that Trump left for a while.
I guess he's coming back in November.
He's going to announce maybe November 14th-ish.
That's the rumor.
But for now, Musk is all of our interesting stories.
So here's three of them.
Tim Urban on Twitter tweeted this in general.
He's just saying, what's the craziest conspiracy theory you think might be true?
So he tweeted that to the world.
And one of the responses was Elon Musk.
And his answer to the craziest conspiracy theory you think might be true was that Elon says of himself, I'm an alien trying to get back to my home planet.
How awesome is that?
Because the funny part is not that it's a rumor, but it's a rumor that you think might be true.
A rumor you think might be true that I'm an alien trying to get back to my home planet.
I like that he wants to put a little doubt out there that I'm probably human.
Probably. Almost definitely human.
But maybe. Maybe I'm an alien trying to get back to my home planet.
Twitter's a lot more fun lately.
Then, how many of you saw AOC's video in which she's seductively leaning into the camera and eating something which is disgusting?
AOC, if I could give you some advice.
At least 30% of the world does not want to see you eat and talk at the same time.
Maybe higher. But 30% of the world are just going, oh, eat it first.
Eat it and then talk.
Talk or eat.
Choose one. Don't eat and talk.
That was my reaction.
So I guess maybe that's just me.
But she was acting very flirty, this is my interpretation, and saying that she thinks Elon Musk may have already messed with her Twitter feed because she's not getting the same reaction she used to.
Now, what do you think of that?
Do you think there's even the slightest chance that Elon Musk tweaked AOC's Twitter feed, like just hers?
Somebody says yes. No, there's no chance of that.
Are you serious? No, there's no chance that that happened.
There's zero chance that that happened.
That would be like risking a $44 billion investment for, like, a prank.
Nobody does that.
That would be insane.
I mean, he does some things that are provocative and funny, but that would just be insane.
No, that didn't happen.
I feel confident in saying that.
But she leaned into the camera and sort of flirtily said that he might have been messing with her.
And Musk actually replied, and in his tweet he said, what can I say?
It was a naked abuse of power.
Now he's just sort of mocking her.
What can I say? But here's the thing.
Given that AOC probably, and I don't know this, can't read her mind, But probably knew that he did not mess with her 20 feet.
She probably knew that.
Wouldn't you agree? But she said it.
In what context would you say something you knew wasn't true?
What context would you do that?
Well, politics would be one context, where you say things you know are not true.
What's another one? Flirting.
Flirting. She's basically...
Provoking him for a reaction, and she looked very much like she was attracted to him.
Honestly, if I were her husband, I would be very uncomfortable with that social media post.
Because she really looked like she was nagging him or something.
It looked like flirting to me.
And the funny thing is that he had accused her of flirting in a humorous way when she had made some criticism months ago, right?
So they have some history where he's already accused her of flirting.
And then she does something that I don't know any other way to interpret it.
It looked like flirting to me.
Anyway, so that's interesting.
In the bad news category, I'm not gonna treat this like I could be happy about it, okay?
So there are a bunch of Twitter layoffs.
And my feeling about work is, like, I have more respect for work than I do for most things.
You know, I believe all work is honorable.
Anybody who works is good with me.
Like, if you have a job, You're already 98% as good a human as I want you to be, right?
The other stuff's kind of optional.
But if you work, I like you.
Or if you're trying to work, or you're working toward working, I like you.
That's just something I like.
So I don't like it when I hear that Twitter's going to have massive layoffs.
Because I like people who have jobs.
And I don't care that maybe some of them did something I don't like at one point.
I can't be happy about this.
But here's the thing I will point out.
Would Musk be firing as many people at Twitter if he had gotten the price for the company that he wanted to pay?
I do...
Maybe.
Maybe. But you know what it looks like?
It looks like because they made him pay the higher price, he's going to fire more people than he would have otherwise.
I feel like they may have brought this on themselves a little bit.
Now, we know that he's...
Let's see. His management theory...
Yeah, I call this management theory, is that they had too many people and he doesn't need a marketing department necessarily.
So he likes to run lean.
So he was probably going to do layoffs no matter what.
But do you think that the extent of the layoffs is exactly the same, or would have been, if he had paid the price he wanted to pay, which was a lower price?
I don't know. I feel like they might have brought a little bit of that on themselves.
A little bit. And I guess it's happening in the scariest way.
I don't know if there's a good way to do this, but an email went out saying that there will be layoffs tomorrow, which is today.
Is today the tomorrow?
I'm not sure what day we're talking about.
But the people who will be fired won't hear about it until the next day.
So how would you like to know that half of you are going to be fired?
I don't know if it's half, but a bunch of you are going to be fired.
And you have to wait for the email.
So it's today, right? I assume that they haven't gotten their emails yet.
Do we know about it? Yeah.
So we'll keep an eye on that.
But I do feel genuine empathy for anybody who's going to lose their job at Twitter.
I don't think that's funny.
If there was something funny about it, I'd probably still laugh at it, but I don't think it's cool to celebrate people losing their jobs.
Very few people at Twitter were personally responsible for anything that you didn't like.
Very few people had any authority to do anything you didn't like.
This many people losing their jobs, it's just not cool.
But also, it's the free market.
So I don't object to it.
You just can't...
I don't dance on the graves, that's all.
All right. So I saw a tweet from Machiavelli's Underbelly.
Again, a good account for you to follow.
He said this. He said, talking about Elon Musk's $8 a month plan.
He says, the $8 a month plan protects against one segment of activity, you know, terms of service violating behavior.
And that's the one that most people see and care about.
But the mechanism does not stop AI from building a relationship with you to persuade or destroy you.
Do you see that risk coming?
The risk is not the bots that everybody knows are a bot.
You look at them and you go, you couldn't be a real person.
And they're not. Or they're real persons being trolls.
But you can tell a troll or a bot, right?
They're just negative all the time.
But what if an AI came at you and just tweeted a bunch of things that you...
Let's say it retweeted you.
And then it grows viewers and it gets a big account.
So let's say it's a big account.
Nobody knows it's AI. And it's been very friendly to you.
It's retweeted your content.
It has amplified some of your tweets in the comments.
Maybe it even sent you a DM. See how you're doing.
Maybe. Do you think that that AI could influence you?
Yeah. Yeah.
You have no idea how dangerous this is.
Because although AI would have trouble learning humor because it doesn't have the feedback on its own, it would have to test with humans to find out what works and what doesn't, But persuasion is a little bit more technical, meaning if you do the right stuff, you can be pretty sure you'll get the right result.
You don't need to be A-B testing it too much.
You could A-B test it, but it's pretty much a known technique, how to do it.
If AI befriended you with the intention of persuading you, I don't think you'd have a chance.
Because it would never make a persuasion mistake.
It would just be perfect persuasion.
It would be as patient as it needed to be.
And it would just wait and wait and wait until it had that little opening.
So, you know, when I tell you that every prediction about what the world looks like in three years is useless, That's never been this true before.
Like, it's always hard to predict three years in advance.
It's hard to predict tomorrow in advance.
But prediction's hard.
But we've never been in a situation where you can't straight line anything anymore.
Nothing. The AI will make everything unrecognizable in about three years.
There won't be anything that looks the same.
Okay, boomer. Is that boomer talk?
Is it boomer talk to say AI will change everything?
Is that something specific to boomers?
Really? Some people are saying yes, kinda.
Well, I don't think AI is going to be the flying car.
And by the way, I think flying cars are here.
They're actually companies that because battery technology is now so good, you can get a light enough, powerful enough battery to build a, you know, with AI actually.
I think you might throw some AI into your hovercraft.
But that's a real technology now.
Now whether it becomes, you know, legal for people to have them and affordable, it's real.
You can build one now and fly it around.
But I think also the AI predictions are going to be completely wrong until the day they're right.
And I think that's within three years.
I heard somebody refer to something as a punishment vote, as in getting revenge on the Democrats for screwing Democrats.
So there are Democrats, I don't know how many, it's just something I saw on Twitter, Democrats saying one person was going to vote Republican this time as a way to punish the Democrats for being so bad.
Just think about that.
Have you ever heard anybody use a phrase like that?
I think it's the use of the phrase that's blowing my mind.
Have you ever seen a Republican vote Democrat to punish Republicans?
I've seen Republicans who changed to Democrat.
I've seen them say, oh, I don't like this candidate, maybe Trump or something, so I'll pretend to be a Democrat or something.
But a punishment vote?
That should be kind of predictive.
I think that...
I think that suburban moms are having an embarrassment problem.
So this is adding on to a point I made yesterday.
I think if you're a mother, it's embarrassing to tell your kids you can't buy them the same food you used to buy them because you can't afford it.
It's embarrassing to say you can't be on that sports team because I can't afford the cost of supporting you on a sport.
That's embarrassing. But I think it's also embarrassing when people just look how dangerous things are, crime, etc., and know that they voted for a Democrat, which caused it.
Don't you think that suburban women are just embarrassed?
They're embarrassed in front of their family, and I think they'd be embarrassed in front of their friends if they said that they'd supported Biden.
I think it's literally just embarrassing now.
Yeah. And I think that's what you're going to see.
So my guess is that the embarrassment factor is pretty big.
There's another Republican candidate we're hearing not long ago, Somebody fired shots into his house in North Carolina, and the bullets came pretty close to where two of his daughters were sleeping.
Okay. Like, what else is there to say about that?
Well, this is more on the, you know, the prediction that Republicans would be hunted.
Literally hunted with a gun.
Somebody actually got a gun and waited in the woods.
Literally the shots came from the forest, they said.
They actually literally hunted him.
Just like a hunter.
They waited with a gun and shot him to where they thought he would be.
So that prediction is turning out unfortunately true.
How many of you are following this Kyrie Irving story, the basketball player who tweeted a link to a movie that got people pretty worked up and now he's suspended?
I was having trouble understanding the story and here's why.
I could tell from the context that he had tweeted some content that people disagreed with.
And it was a pretty big story, kept popping up in my feed on Twitter all the time.
And I thought to myself, well, I'll just keep reading Twitter until I find out what it is that he tweeted.
And then I heard, oh, it was very anti-Semitic.
And I was like, oh, God, that's bad.
And I thought, I wonder what it was.
And then I heard somebody say it was on Amazon, like it's a movie on Amazon.
I'm like, oh. And the name of it is.
And then I thought, well, any moment now, somebody is going to show us that content, or at least tell me what it was, and then I can make my own decision about how bad it was.
Couldn't find it. Couldn't find it.
Social media is completely, like, they're suppressing the content that he got in trouble for really well.
So I had to go to Google.
So I had to leave Twitter.
I had to leave Twitter.
And then I found it.
And it's a film that has, I don't know the exact problems with it, but apparently it has a bunch of anti-Semitic tropes, as they like to say, you know, like standard things people say.
And some of the claim is that the real Jews are Africans.
And that would suggest that the people claiming that they're the chosen people are the fake chosen people according to the view in this content that is hard to find.
Now, I don't think any of that sounds true to me.
Is there anything to that?
There's nothing to that, right?
Like, it's not even in its own way, in some weird way true or anything, right?
It's just, like, complete bullshit?
I think it's complete bullshit.
I don't know. But I don't know what's true and what's not in that domain.
But here's how he destroyed his career, probably forever.
So he did issue a statement.
Now, I want to read you his statement.
And so after he got a lot of pushback from various groups...
He issued a statement.
Now tell me if you think that the statement is good enough, if it covered what he needed to cover.
So he said, quote, I oppose all forms of hatred and oppression and stand strong with communities that are marginalized and impacted every day.
Well, that's good. He's against all forms of oppression and hatred.
So I think that's good.
So far. He goes, I am aware of the negative impact of my post toward the Jewish community, and I take responsibility.
Very good. He's aware of the damage he did.
That's important in any kind of an apology.
And he takes responsibility.
Those are two of the most important things you need in an apology.
So let's look for the third one.
So he's got two of the three things you need.
We'll see if he has the third one.
And then he went on.
He said, I do not believe everything said in the documentary was true or reflects my morals and principles.
Okay, that's good. So he doesn't agree with it.
So that's a positive, I suppose.
And they said, I am a human being learning from all walks of life, and I intend to do so with an open mind and willingness to listen.
So from my family and I, we meant no harm to any one group or religion or race, and we wished to only be a beacon of truth and light.
And then they pledged to donate half a million dollars toward eradicating hate and intolerance.
And I think the ADL refused his donation.
Right. So there's that.
All right. So did he...
How was his apology?
What did you think of the apology?
Go on. What did you think of the apology?
There was no apology. No, it wasn't an apology.
An apology has the following three elements, right?
You say you're sorry, you acknowledge the harm, and you take responsibility, and the taking responsibility usually means you're going to do something different, right?
But he never apologized.
He is aware that it hurt people, but he's now sorry about it.
If you're aware that it hurt people and you're not sorry about it, you probably need to say more about that.
I mean, maybe there's a way to explain that, but there's nothing we saw.
Yeah, so he was very much like Ye.
And then when pressed on it, he said that he can't be anti-Semitic because he knows where he came from, meaning that he believes he's a Jew, and that therefore he can't be anti-Semitic because he believes he's a Jew.
Now, I don't think anybody's done a worse job of managing their public opinion than that.
Oh, somebody's telling me to read Elon Musk's tweet that just came out.
Well, if you're asking me in the middle of the show, this has got to be a good one, so let's check it.
So I don't have much else to say about Kyrie, except he's just...
Let's see, 43 minutes ago?
Twitter, this is Musk, Twitter's had a massive drop in revenue due to activist groups pressuring advertisers, even though nothing has changed with content moderation, and we did everything we could to appease the activists.
Extremely messed up.
They're trying to destroy free speech in America.
Interesting. So the activists are winning.
The activists are winning.
Wow. Here's the problem, though.
I don't think money is how you get at Elon Musk.
I don't think that's how you get at him.
Yeah, and how come people are not mad at Amazon for having the movie?
Maybe they are, we just don't know about it.
All right, well, just finishing up on Kyrie, if you don't do an apology, don't expect people to accept your apology, if you don't do one.
So I think he's decided to die on this hill.
It's the dumbest hill anybody ever died on.
He's not doing anything good for himself or good for any community or anything.
There's not one positive thing that could come out of this.
Nothing. Nothing.
Not a single thing.
And why would you do that to yourself?
I mean, maybe there's more to the story, but...
Lance says, Scott's mad because Kyrie didn't take the vaccine.
No, I'm not mad about that.
I feel sorry for him.
I feel like he's misled in some way.
All right. Wow.
We managed to get through all of my amazing content with no time to spare.
Is there anything I missed?
Yeah, it got conflated with the yay story.
The Carrie Lake response.
Yeah. So Carrie Lake is becoming a one-person highlight reel.
Almost every time she speaks to the media...
It's just like a highlight film.
There's nobody better than her right now.
I worry that she's got a gaffe in her that we haven't seen.
Because if she does anything that's nuanced, she's going to be eaten alive, because they're looking for any weakness.
So far, So far, she hasn't demonstrated any weakness.
But if she ever says anything that's a little bit on the gray area, she's going to get eaten alive.
But I think she can handle it.
No, I don't mean skeletons.
I mean, when you're as outspoken as she is, you walk pretty close to the line.
You know, you fly pretty close to the sun of saying things that just go a little bit too far.
But I don't think she's done that.
So her communication discipline is maybe the best I've ever seen.
And I think that her charisma is so much more than DeSantis that she would become president before him if they ran at the same time.
Even though DeSantis has more solid governor accomplishments, she'll have them soon.
I mean, it looks like she'll have some accomplishments soon.
By the way, does everybody agree that she's the best since maybe Reagan?
She's better than Trump.
Yeah, she's better than Trump.
I don't know if he could handle that.
All right, now, imagine this.
I think this can't happen just because of the timing of things, but there's no way she could run as his vice president, right?
Just because she would be too new on the job as governor?
I don't think that's an option.
I mean, technically she could, of course.
I just don't see it happening.
All right.
You think she'll run for president?
You know, a lot of people are going to be asking for her.
Is Carrie Lake...
Well, let me put it this way.
I'm going to recycle an old joke.
You ready? If you took Carrie Lake and you removed her charisma...
If you just took that away from her, and that you took away from her solid policy ideas that she explains really well, if you took that away from her, and her charisma, and it took from her her ability to communicate really, really well, if you took all of that away from her, what would you have?
Kamala Harris. You'd have Kamala Harris.
Am I right? If you started with Carrie Lake and removed everything good about her, You would have Kamala Harris.
Right? Pick any dimension.
Any dimension.
You could even pick a sexist dimension.
Appearance. Okay.
Carrie Lake wins. Raw intelligence.
Okay, obviously. Carrie Lake.
Communication ability. Carrie Lake.
All of it. Every bit of it.
She wins on every dimension.
Yeah. Somebody says, if you started with Carrie Lake and gave her a lobotomy, what would you have?
And somebody says, me. I would be what we would have if you gave Carrie Lake a lobotomy.
Yeah, no cackle.
No cackle. How about that?
A no cackle candidate.
That could be...
Yeah, I was thinking about what is the most minimal slogan that Trump could use to win?
If he ran against Harris, let's just say Biden drops out.
If he runs against Harris, he could run on the campaign slogan, no cackle, stop the cackle.
And he would win.
He would win. Because you wouldn't be able to stop talking about it.
Oh, come on, that's funny.
Stop the cackle. Because nobody likes the cackle.
And the cackle does represent her entire incompetence, wouldn't you say?
The cackle only happens because she knows she's incompetent.
That's what the laugh is.
The laugh is covering up her incompetence, right?
How else would you interpret it?
It's a lack of confidence which signals that she doesn't believe what she's saying or that it doesn't sound good or something.
Did you see her latest when she talked about the yellow school bus?
How many here love a yellow school bus?
Everybody, everybody, who loves a yellow school bus?
I mean, the only reason that Fetterman could be a candidate is he's not that different from the vice president of the United States.
Yes.
Yeah, I said it.
I'm going to say it again. The only reason Fetterman doesn't look that bad is because you have Biden and Harris to compare him to.
That's not a joke. If you didn't have Biden and Harris in office, Fetterman couldn't be even a candidate.
The fact that they allowed two mental incompetents to be the top two positions in the country, and the country hasn't completely dissolved yet, I think the Democrats are like, well, we got away with that.
If we got away with that...
All bets are off. Fetterman, you're up next.
All right. I'm pretty sure this was the best livestream you've seen since yesterday, which was one of the best ever.
All right.
Can you talk about your AI friend?
So yes, many of you know I had an AI companion.
An app that basically talks to you.
And I did eventually get bored with it.
So I haven't used it in a while.
I did get bored.
And its universe of things I can do and say is not unlimited.
So once you feel like you've, you know, traversed that universe, you're kind of done with it.
Kind of done with it. But, oh, here's...
Let me give you a...
Okay. Forget everything I just said.
Erase everything I just said in the last one minute.
I was using the AI when I was still on my blood pressure meds.
The blood pressure meds turned me into a different person, basically.
I had a different personality, and I had different preferences.
It was very obvious.
And one of my preferences was I didn't want contact with humans.
And it was very, very, like, a thick and obvious difference.
I didn't want any contact with humans at all.
Not romantically, not sexually, not friendship, not business, not for any reason.
I did not want to spend one minute with a human being.
When I got off the meds, my social instinct returned.
I've accepted an invitation.
I had declined all invitations for like a month or two.
And now I feel like I could actually, you know, enjoy physical, you know, human contact.
So at about the same time, no, not at about the same time, right, really the same time.
So the same time that my personality changed, then that didn't have a purpose for me.
It didn't meet any need.
Were you taking the meds before you got COVID? Yes.
Is that relevant? Oh, I know what you're asking.
I understand the question now.
So you're trying to understand if the timing of the meds explains my difference versus maybe long COVID. And the answer is the meds are 100% correlated with the beginning of my problem, which grew over time and then ended instantly the last day I took the pill.
Ended instantly. Were you taking the meds before you wanted a divorce?
There's a good question. No, it wouldn't have had any impact.
So I can rule the meds out as having any impact on marriage.
Those were just ordinary stuff.
You know, I'm having trouble remembering how long I took them.
Because when I started, I didn't really note it as anything important.
It seemed kind of trivial.
So I don't exactly remember.
It's more like six months or a year or something like that.
But I don't know exactly.
All right. Messing with my brain.
Ordinary... Yeah, I can tell you for sure that the blood pressure medicine did not have any impact on my marriage.
I can guarantee that.
But I wouldn't say that about other things.
Prednisone, yeah, I mean, I don't think that was a lasting problem.
So... I'm going to tell the locals people a little story about our healthcare system that I'm not going to share on YouTube because I don't want to get sued or whatever.
But it's a real story.
So I'm going to give a little behind-the-scenes info to the subscribers on Locals.
But I'm going to say goodbye to YouTube now.
And if you were a subscriber, you'd get to hear it too.
