Episode 1964 Scott Adams: Why The Country Doesn't Agree On Vaccinations. You Won't Like It
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Solar & Wind power
China is the enemy
Absurd Absolute, Word Salad, The "So" Tell
Whiteboard1: The Alex Berenson Problem
Whiteboard2: The Dr. Robert Malone Problem
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
There's never been a finer moment and today I don't want to get you too excited in case anybody's got high blood pressure.
But there will be two whiteboards today.
No! Calm down, calm down.
Two whiteboards. You can handle it.
And if you'd like to get ready for this, the coup de gras, the height of everything.
Well, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine hit of the day.
The thing makes everything better. It's cold.
The simultaneous sip.
Go. Well, Broker Natalie, I feel the same way about you.
We've never been met.
But that's how confident I am in your qualities.
Well, let's see.
Let's see how smart my audience is.
I'll tell you that I'm going to prime you with one fact, and then I'm going to stop it.
Stop it. The local subscribers are so smart, they answer my questions before I even ask them.
Hold on. Hold on.
So according to Rasmussen, 42% of voters believe most members of Congress are corrupt.
Just let that absorb for a moment.
We'll get to the next question.
42% of voters believe members of Congress are corrupt.
That doesn't seem good, does it?
It makes you wonder what the number has to be before the system crumbles.
But probably it could be 85% that the system would be stable.
Because nobody knows what to do about it.
You're like, yeah, I don't know what to do about it.
Because it's not like, here's what people don't say.
Here's what they don't say.
Boy, the other team is corrupt.
Right? Now, there's not something on my nose that's a boo-boo.
It's a scratch. I know it's distracting because it's like right in the middle of my nose.
But it'll be gone eventually.
42% think Congress is corrupt.
All right, so here's the big question.
What percentage of people, according to the Rasmussen poll, what percentage of likely U.S. voters believe that Congress is doing a good or excellent job How many say they're doing a good or excellent job?
Amazing how well you do this.
25% is correct.
How did you do this? Again, I have the smartest audience in the history of all live streams.
I think this is proof.
And by the way, by the time I'm done with you today, you will be the smartest audience.
I'm going to clear up something for you that by the end of this live stream, you're going to say to yourself, oh shit, I see it now.
Do you think I can do that?
Every one of you is going to have that.
Every one of you is going to say, oh shit, I see the pattern now.
It's a pattern you haven't seen before.
And when you see it, you're going to go, shit.
And everything will make sense.
Do you think I can deliver that?
I'm making a big claim so I can get you excited about thinking I can or cannot do it.
All right, all right. Hold on, we'll get to it.
I'm going to save it toward the end.
Well, I saw an interesting video today by Peter Zan, who is claiming, and yeah, I don't have sources for this, but I'll put it out there as one smart person saying smart things.
Sounded right to me.
It goes like this.
That solar is overrated, solar power, and the argument is that The peak demand for solar...
No, the peak demand for energy is what time of day?
Anybody? What time of day does the...
Night. Peak demand is night.
So you already have a storage problem, right?
Now, someday there have been big breakthroughs in battery storage.
So if there are big breakthroughs in battery storage, we might have a whole different situation.
But we're not there yet.
Yeah, after 6 p.m., I think, is the peak load.
And then how many places on Earth have the right conditions for solar, where you can get enough light?
Not that many. Yeah, not that many.
Maybe 25%, something like that.
But it's a small percentage of the world.
So that's the problem. Then you have massive environmental problems in the creation of the actual solar panels.
You've got your slave labor, and you've got to use a massive amount of coal power.
I don't know why it needs to be coal.
I think it just is, because it's China.
In other words, it doesn't have to be coal, but that's just the way it's being done.
So you've got to use all this coal carbon-wise.
It's a disaster in the production part of it.
But then you should make it up later, right?
And his argument is, in many places, you'll never make up the difference.
Because there won't be enough sun, and there won't be enough sun at the right time.
Now, this is his argument, right?
I'm just presenting it as he presented it.
That's not necessarily my argument.
Now, he says that, compared to that, that wind is actually looking good.
And here's something I didn't know.
So this is a new factoid.
Apparently, the people who make windmills have learned, they probably knew it all along, but they know how to do something about it now.
They learned that the higher the windmill, the more stable the air, and the more of it there is, the more wind and the more stable.
But what they couldn't do easily before is to build a high enough tower.
And apparently now they know how to do that.
Now, building a windmill also has a carbon footprint, right?
It's not free. You know, you have to get materials and mine them, whatever the hell you're doing.
But apparently, it's allegedly way less of a carbon problem compared to solar.
And the other advantage is that you can put the wind in certain places and you can guarantee that it'll work in those.
But wind doesn't work everywhere either.
So that's a new interesting fact, that if the wind is, or if the tower is high enough, it's a whole different set of economics.
Did you know that? How many people knew that?
That that's sort of a big deal, making them taller, could just change the whole economics.
I knew taller was better, but I didn't know it would make that much of a difference.
Okay. Well, good to know.
So you are all more informed than the average person about green stuff.
And by the time I'm done, man, you're going to be smart.
All right, true story.
There's a French hospital that brought in an 88-year-old man, and his complaint was that he had a World War II artillery shell lodged in his rectum.
It was 8 inches long, about 2 inches in diameter.
And it was an unexploded World War II artillery shell.
And so he goes in the hospital with this artillery shell lodged deep within his rectum.
And what did the doctor say when he arrived?
Rectum. It practically killed him.
I had to do that one.
We're going to start with the easy ones.
That's the one you could have done at home.
Could we agree that was not professional quality?
It was below my, you know, my commercial level of humor.
But that's just the warm-up.
You didn't think I'm done, right?
Oh, no. Now, if an 88-year-old man goes into a French hospital with an unexploded World War II ordinance up his ass, do you think I'm going to do one joke and then go home?
Have you met me?
No. No.
What was the other thing the doctor said when they saw what the problem was?
Fire in the hole.
Anybody? Anybody?
Okay, that's not my joke either.
That one's from Theodore.
Theodore Geftos. Fire in the hole.
Now, he did it funnier.
He had A-hole. Fire in the A-hole.
But I thought you would get it without the A. Fire in the hole.
Yeah. But I don't think that the headline captured the entire beauty of this story.
Now we're going to take it up to professional level.
Are you ready? So far, that was sort of amateur, citizen-level jokes.
We started out easy.
Started down easy. Went up to fire in the hole.
That's right on the borderline of commercial quality.
Now watch me take it up.
See, this will be the difference between the professionals and the amateurs.
And now, my professional-level joke.
Breaking.
Doctors ruin the world's best pull-my-finger gag.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Now that's professional level.
That's the difference.
See the difference? Yeah, that's professional level humor.
It's very different. Very different.
All right, here's a provocative thought, courtesy of DocAnarchy on Twitter.
Also has a substack you might be interested in.
And he asked this.
Now, this is his opinion, right?
So I'm not giving you my opinion.
This is just a tweet. He says, the newest Twitter files showed the FBI was secretly persuading us to hate China, among other countries.
And then he asked this provocative question.
How sure are you that China hatred is organic?
Have you fallen for FBI propaganda?
Who made...
What do you think?
I love that question.
Do you think that our collective feeling about China happened because we read the news and formed our own opinions independently?
Do you know what the only real answer to that is?
There's only one real answer to that question.
You can't know.
You can't know.
It's unknowable. And it's actually a very good question.
Like, when you first hear it, you're like, come on, right?
Like, your first reaction is, come on.
Why would that even happen?
Like, who would be doing that?
And then you think about it for like a second, in the context of everything we've learned in the last two years, and you say to yourself, oh, actually that's the only way it does work.
It wouldn't be the exception.
It's the only way anything happens.
The media assigns your opinion, and then you think you came up with it on your own.
That's the way everything happens.
This wouldn't be the one time.
It's everything. There's no exception to that.
So yes, yes, your opinions were assigned to you by the media.
Now, not necessarily the FBI, but here's the next question.
Do you think the FBI, on their own, organically came up with the idea, let's tell everybody to feel bad about China?
Were they the originators of the thought that eventually got assigned to the public?
Nope. Where'd they get it from?
Where'd the media get it from?
So presumably the FBI is as influenced by the media as everybody else, right?
Probably everything the FBI knows about China, like 99% of what they know about China, is exactly what you know.
Do you think the FBI has any special information that would inform their decisions?
Well, yes.
They would have special information about bad behavior of China.
But I think we know that too, right?
Is there anybody who doesn't know China's shipping fentanyl to the cartels?
I doubt there's anything that's really, really bad that the public doesn't already believe is true as well.
So the question is then, if the FBI... It's convincing us.
Who convinced the FBI? That was the media, because that's who convinced everybody.
But who convinced the media?
Who convinced the media that China was the enemy?
Seriously, who did it?
The CIA? But who would have convinced them?
Like, where did it start with?
You could say Trump a little bit, but Trump was saying that China was an adversary, like just an economic adversary, basically.
It's funny, nobody said me.
Nobody said me. Now, here's the fun part.
If I did it, I could admit it to you.
I could tell you. If I did it, I could just say, I did that.
And you wouldn't believe it.
If I really did it.
Would you agree with that? I'm not saying I did it.
I'm saying, if I did that myself, you wouldn't know.
And if I told you I did, you'd say, no, you didn't.
Or some of you would believe it because you're biased that way.
Some would not believe it because you're biased the other way.
But basically, you would just follow your bias.
I could actually change the entire global political structure of the world and tell you I did it, show you how I did it, and you still couldn't see it.
That's a true statement.
I could change the whole fucking world right in front of you, show you I did it, you still wouldn't see it.
It'd be invisible. Now, one of the coolest things about being a hypnotist is knowing how to hide things in plain sight.
I do it all the time, and you don't know it, because you can't see it.
It's basically the combination of two skills.
One is persuasion, and the other is magic tricks.
Magic tricks are about getting you to look in the wrong place, or to think in the wrong place.
Magic tricks are more about how you think than what you're looking at.
So, when I combine the two, I can simply make you look in the wrong place while I'm showing you the right thing.
I can hold it right up to you, and you'd be looking over here.
You would never even be able to see it.
It's the damnedest thing.
And there's no way I could explain it to you in a way you'd actually believe that what I'm telling you is true.
I could hide anything right in front of you.
You'd never see it.
So, what is the truth?
Am I the reason that opinions about China are so bad at the moment?
Well, it does track exactly with the death of my stepson.
If you were to look at the news reports, you'd see a very direct correlation.
But there are many variables going on, right?
I have a request to hide the dot on my nose because it's too distracting.
I think you're right.
So, like I was saying, let's continue with the rest of the show.
Let's see if I can do like one of the...
You know how on TV, when they have a pregnant actress in a sitcom, they have to shoot around the stomach?
And you see it immediately because you know that she's pregnant.
It's like all the views are up here.
I'm going to try to do that.
So for the rest of the show, I'm going to accidentally be covering it without you being aware that every time I do this, you'll never see it.
And so, let's look at the whiteboard, and let's come back.
Do you think I can pull this off for another 45 minutes?
No, it would be too annoying.
Don't look at my dot on my nose.
Don't look at the dot on my nose.
Whatever you do, do not focus on the dot on my nose.
Get it out of your mind. No thinking about the dot on my nose.
I think that worked. No, it just made it worse.
Moly, moly, moly.
I know what you're thinking. Say it.
Say it. Moly, moly, moly.
Go ahead. I know what you're thinking.
Movie reference. All right.
And now, to bake your brain like it's never been baked before.
But first, have I told you about the so, tell for cognitive dissonance?
Have I taught you that when somebody starts their tweet response in debate, so, you're saying that that is always a sign of cognitive dissonance.
And that there are two things to look for.
First is the word so at the beginning of the sentence.
But that's not 100% reliable.
It's very close.
It's probably 90% reliable, but it's not 100%.
Because every once in a while, somebody might use the word so, and it's just a way of talking, right?
Because it's a word. You could use words.
But 90% of the time, in the context of a debate, it's a signal that the next thing I'm going to say is nonsense.
Now, what is the form of the nonsense?
Because this would be the second confirmation.
So if they say something that's nonsense, what kind of nonsense?
A special kind.
Right. Absurd absolutes, that's one, where they say, oh, you're saying that 100% of people die from a vaccination, for example.
That would be an absurd absolute.
The other is word salad, where you look at the sentence and you say, that doesn't even look like a person who knows how words go together.
And then the other is, as was mentioned here, mind reading.
Where somebody says, oh, so you're thinking that gravity is really made of chocolate.
And you think, literally no one thinks gravity is made of chocolate.
Literally no one. And yet, you've read my mind to think that's in there?
That's just a clear, clear science.
So, when I see a real example of this in the wild, I like to point it out to my audience, because this is one of the things that makes you smarter than other people.
Once you can recognize cognitive dissonance, pull back.
You can't talk somebody out of an illusion.
If somebody's hallucinating, you can't say, no, you don't see that elephant right in front of you.
That doesn't work.
It'll never work. So you have to know when to make your shot and when to just pull back and say, okay, we're done here.
Now, by the way, when you see the so tell, the word so followed by the nonsense, that's when you should declare victory.
That is, you unambiguously made a point that just destroyed the other person's mind in real time.
Like somebody's mind just fell apart in real time.
And it happens so commonly that you don't notice it, right?
But I'm going to give you one really specific example that happened this morning.
And I'm going to beg you to ignore the content of the disagreement.
Because if you start agreeing with either of the two people, you'll miss the point.
So it's not about which one is right, okay?
Because you could be wrong and still trigger somebody into cognitive dissonance, right?
So all that has to happen is somebody sees something in the real world that is contrary to what they believe is true and their whole self-image of who they are, and then it happens automatically.
So here's the setup.
Somebody named Scott, who isn't me, said in a tweet about COVID, says, the evidence that it reduces the severity of an infection in the most vulnerable appears to be clear.
Don't disagree or agree, all right?
Don't agree, don't disagree.
We're not talking about whether he's right or wrong.
He's just saying that the evidence would show that the jabs seem to help people survive.
Don't agree or disagree.
Now, Todd, Replies to that with this.
So, the new pro-vax argument is, quote, I know my shot endangers you, but it makes things safer for me, and that's all that matters, unquote.
What a selfish position.
Do you see it? He starts with so, and then he puts in quote something that very much did not happen.
This person did not say anything about shot endangering anybody, which is not in evidence at all.
But it makes things safer for him, which is not in evidence.
That's mind reading.
And that's all that matters.
It's not in evidence. It's mind reading.
And it's an absolute. So he's got an absurd absolute.
That's all that matters.
Do you think that poor Scott, not me, do you think that whatever his actual argument is, do you think that his argument is that that's all that matters?
That's nobody's argument.
Like, literally nobody would have that argument.
Oh, that's all that matters in this big, complicated situation.
So, do you get the lesson?
When you see the so, look for the absurd absolute, the mind reading, Or the word salad.
Sometimes all of them. And it is so clear.
It's just so clear. Now, have you ever wondered why we can't agree on the most basic things like climate change or vaccinations?
I actually finally figured out why.
And it's going to blow your mind because it's actually kind of obvious.
But you're not going to like it at first.
So some of you are going to get triggered into cognitive dissonance.
I'm not doing it intentionally in this case.
Sometimes I do it intentionally.
I'm not doing it intentionally.
So, whatever it is you need to tell your brain to prime yourself, there's a very high chance you're gonna get triggered in the next moment.
Alright? Number one, I'm gonna lead you into it slowly so you can sort of get acclimated before you get the hard stuff.
Number one. If a climate scientist says, here's my projection of what's going to happen into the future, I say, that's not credible, and my critics say, why are you doubting science?
Who's right? I say, your prediction of the future is not credible.
It might be right. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but it's not credible.
And then my critics say, you're being anti-science, because all the scientists are on the same page, or most of them.
Most of them are on the same page.
And what is my defense to that, do you know?
What's my defense? Has anybody ever seen me defend that situation?
Here's my defense. If a scientist is telling me science, I might defer to the expert who knows more than I do.
Because does a scientist know more about climate change, especially if it's their field, than I do?
We all agree, yes, right?
The scientist in climate change knows more than Scott does.
And so if I were to question the climate scientist, That would be sort of a weak position on my side, unless I had some other expert agreeing with me, I suppose.
So that's what people see.
They see this expert, and then they see a cartoonist.
They're like, ah, who am I going to believe, the cartoonist or the expert?
What's wrong with their analysis?
I'll tell you. Who's the expert on data analysis?
The scientist or me?
Well, I did it for a living.
I did data analysis for a living.
So when I see a scientist show me a data analysis or projection, specifically a projection, he's in my domain.
He's not in his own domain.
So if I call bullshit on my domain, then you should agree with me if you like experts.
I'll bet there's not anybody showing a projection who has done as much work as I have, as many hours as I have, creating my own projections.
So I know exactly what the pitfalls are.
I know who lies why.
I know the whole dynamic of how these things get biased by everything else.
All right, so that's your first example.
So this is not a conversation about climate change.
It's about the expert communicates using a mode, data, that's not their expertise.
So you're fooled into thinking you're hearing from an expert, but you're not.
You're hearing an expert outside of his expertise using data.
Because data is not what, that's not science per se.
Now, I'm not saying all scientists can't do data analysis.
I wouldn't say that. I'm sure there are plenty who can.
But you don't know, and most of them are not experts.
Now, how about doctors?
Are you aware of the course that all doctors are required to take to teach them how to look at data studies?
Have you heard of that course?
It's called something that doesn't exist.
It doesn't exist.
Ask them. They don't learn how to do data analysis.
So then COVID happens.
And what happened when COVID happens?
There were a whole bunch of doctors and virologists and experts who told us about the data.
And then we said, oh, we better believe the doctors.
But you know what? You didn't really hear from the doctors, did you?
The doctors left their field of expertise Enter the field of data where they're not experts, and then they told you something.
Should you believe the experts?
Well, we haven't heard from them.
You haven't heard from the experts.
If you heard from a doctor, that's the wrong person.
Because it's data.
Data analysis is a whole different field.
So if a doctor is giving you data analysis, are you hearing from an expert?
No. No, it's just like climate change.
The data expert is a whole different field.
So if I disagree with somebody's data, and they're like a big virologist, who do you trust?
The person who can spot bullshit data, and has done it for decades, at a commercial level, right?
People paid me to do it.
It was actually my job to know what was a good analysis and a bad analysis.
All right. Here comes the payoff.
Are you ready? Here's how I get in trouble.
I'm going to label this the Alex Berenson problem, which will take about 10 seconds before Alex Berenson gets a bunch of messages saying, he's talking about you.
You better go over there and clear that up, because he's going to cause some trouble for you.
Let me start by a compliment to Alex Berenson.
So let me start.
While I often disagree with the people who are the rogue voices, you know, the ones who are outside the mainstream, while I often say that they're wrong, because I think overall they're usually wrong on topics in general, right? The ones who are outside the mainstream are usually wrong.
But every now and then, they're the only ones who are right.
Would you agree? Every now and then, they're the only ones who are right.
So let me give a big thumbs up and even an applause for the Alex Berenson's.
We need more Alex Berenson's.
Would you agree, everybody?
So as a patriot, A+. Can we all be on the same page?
It looked like he was trying to help, It looked like he spotted a problem that he thought was very important to spread.
Looks like he took some personal risk, a lot of it actually, to do it.
Now, if you're new to me, does that mean I agree with the Alex Berenson point of view?
Those of you who know me know that's not what's happening.
I'm saying that, I told you I think yesterday, I'm going to spend between now and the end of this year, Giving people as much appreciation as I can.
I feel it's just a good exercise at the end of the year, right?
So I'm going to appreciate Alex Berenson, and we're going to talk about Dr.
Malone next. I appreciate Dr.
Malone. Heroes, patriots, but I don't know if they're right.
You need to hear that part really clearly.
I don't know if they're right.
How would I know? I mean, it's impossible to know.
But I appreciate the hell out of it, okay?
So we can start with that, right?
And then you'll know I'm not just being a dick, okay?
I'll call it the Alex Berenson problem, but I think the problem might be on your end, not his end, okay?
So here's the fact.
So there's some data, and we don't trust any data, but there is data, that says that there are more vaxxed people getting infected than non-vaxxed.
How do you interpret that?
Well... The way that Alex Berenson is suggesting, and I would say it's more the way he words it.
I don't think he said it directly.
But you could maybe correct me.
But he's suggesting that there's something about getting the vax that makes you more vulnerable to COVID because the data says that there are more vaxed people getting infected these days than non-vaxed.
So certainly if you hoped that your vaccinations were actual vaccinations, this would be a disaster.
Can we all agree on that?
That would be a disaster.
But there's another interpretation.
That the data shows what it shows because vulnerable people are more likely to get a vax.
Wouldn't you expect that most of the people who got vaxed are also the ones who were most vulnerable?
No. No.
Let's break it down.
In general, are the people most vulnerable most likely to get a vaccination?
Yes or no? Are the people most vulnerable most likely to get vaccinated?
Right. So you would expect that there would be the most deaths in the people who had the most vaccinations, wouldn't you?
Because even if it works a little bit, even if, remember that's just if, even if it works a little bit, the people most likely to die get most of the vaccinations, and it does whatever it does, but still that group would be the most likely to die.
So if you saw that the people most likely to die We're the ones who are also most likely to be vaccinated.
Would you conclude that the vaccination was killing them?
Would that be how you analyze that?
Would you assume that the correlation is high, so one is causing the other?
Some say yes. Some say yes.
So that would be an analysis mistake, because that would be confusing correlation, two things that move together, with one causing the other.
Would you expect a journalist, even a very good one, a very educated one, went to a good college, etc., would you expect him to know the difference between correlation and causation?
Do you think that a journalist would be good at teasing out that difference?
It's not really the right expertise, is it?
So you have to put that in your head.
Okay, now how about me?
I've told you I have lots of experience in data analysis, and I haven't looked into this at all.
I haven't looked into it at all.
But the most likely explanation is there's something about the vulnerable people that's different.
That's the most likely explanation.
It's not the most likely explanation that vaccines...
Just think about it.
What are the odds... That science created the only known chemical that would make you more likely to get infected with the COVID. What are the odds of that?
Isn't that a little bit, I hate to say this, but too on the nose?
See what I did? I found another reason to cover that little spot on my nose.
Isn't that too on the nose?
Well, if you were the anti-vax guy, So if you're the antibiotics guy, that's like your brand.
You're famous for that.
And suddenly there's data that makes it look like not only did the vaccination maybe not work as well as people hoped, but my God, it's killing you.
It's actually making you get more of that.
Isn't this a little too on the nose?
Right? Now, how many of you would agree with me so far That whether Alex Berenson is right or wrong about his larger thesis, you know, that the vaccinations have big downsides.
So whether he's right or wrong, would you agree that the analysis is wrong?
Would you agree just that the analysis is wrong on this specific thing?
And would you agree that the most likely is there's a correlation and there's an obvious reason why there would be a correlation, right?
Now let's see if this pattern happens again.
By the way, the reason that the scientists get the climate change projections wrong is that they can't figure in technological advances.
Because you can't predict the unpredictable.
So you don't know if tomorrow there'll be a free energy or fusion or what.
So it's kind of nonsense when you look at the climate models.
Alright, let's look at another one. Again, let's call this the Dr.
Robert Malone problem. Again, the problem is not Dr.
Malone. Dr.
Malone is a patriot and positive influence on the country.
Don't know if he's right or wrong.
There does seem to be lots of suggestion that he was right about some risks that were not fully expressed.
That definitely seems to be true.
But whether he's right about everything is a different question.
Alright, so I saw that he was on Twitter, he showed a graph that showed that there's a huge spike in the excess deaths that correlates with when the vaccinations were available.
So, and the graph, can you see this?
The graph looks like this.
It's like, people die at about the same rate, year after year, people die at about the same rate.
Uh-oh, vaccinations were rolled out and death just goes through the roof.
Excess deaths. So that would indicate...
Would it not? That when you get vaxxed, it increases the likelihood you will die compared to getting COVID. Because that's what Dr.
Robert Ballone, that's the way he presents it.
Now, does he say that directly?
I don't think so.
I think the way he said it was, it's the most important data on the pandemic.
Now, if it's the most important data, you think that, therefore, it's telling you something very important, because it wouldn't be the most important data unless you could do something about it or it changed how you think.
Now, don't you think he's suggesting that it's the vaccinations themselves that are killing people?
Is that your interpretation of his view?
You tell me. Is that his interpretation?
Can you think there's a little disagreement?
Don't know. Well, why else would he say that's the most important data unless he thought there was a correlation?
Because you know what is not important data?
By definition, a correlation that you don't think is causation would be no importance to anybody.
Right? So clearly he doesn't think it's just a correlation.
Because then he would say, well, we don't know if that means anything.
He has to think it's a causation, or he would not say it's important, by definition.
So what is the best way to get at excess deaths?
If you were a data analyst and you said, I'm trying to figure out if people are dying more from the vaccination, so-called vaccination, or more from the COVID itself.
So there's another study in the Journal of American Mental Association, November of this year, I think, and it studied vaccinated counties versus unvaccinated counties.
Vaccinated versus unvaccinated.
And when you do it at the county level, you have the opportunity to pick counties that are kind of similar, like similar demographics and stuff, and the only difference is whether they were highly vaccinated or not.
Now, if you do this analysis, the vaccinated counties do substantially better in survivability than the unvaccinated counties.
So then we're done, right?
You've got a study that shows very clearly that on average getting vaccinated is correlated with survivability, and a pretty strong correlation, pretty big correlation.
And then the unvaccinated counties are doing poorly, so that's all you need to know, right?
What do you say? Is that all you need to know?
Yeah, both of these are unreliable for different reasons.
Would you have known that?
Would you have known not to trust either of these?
How many of you knew not to trust either of them?
And the reason not to trust them is all of our data about the pandemic is suspicious.
Because there's no data that doesn't have a huge financial interest behind it.
Anything that gets even close, Vax mandates skew your, oh, we'll get to that.
Yeah, we'll get to that.
Right, so vaccine mandates, the mandate itself.
But here's the other thing that Dr.
Malone, I think, has not included.
When the vaccinations rolled out and the experts were telling you, oh, everything's good now because of vaccinations, and then you got vaccinated, did you change your behavior?
Of course you did.
The one and only time during the pandemic I was around a lot of people in a closed space, just once.
It was after my vaccinations were effective.
You know, allegedly effective, right?
Only once. The one time I could have gotten COVID, I mean, I suppose I could have gotten it any time, but the one time I was at high risk to catch it was because I had mistakenly thought that my risk was now basically down to zero because I had been vaccinated.
You don't think everybody acted the same way?
So the problem with the everybody dying when the vaccination rolled out is that that's when everybody went outside, right?
Like, that's when everybody stopped socially, right?
Everybody acted the same.
As soon as you thought you were safe, you acted differently than when you thought you were less safe.
Now, can I tell you that that's the reason?
Could I tell you that that's the reason it looks like this?
No. I'm telling you it's a more obvious explanation Than something else.
I'm just saying that if somebody presents data and they don't even mention the most obvious reason for it, instead they go for the second or third most likely reason, that's somebody you shouldn't trust.
Now, am I telling you you shouldn't trust a doctor about the pandemic?
Yes! Yes!
Yes! You shouldn't trust any doctor about the pandemic.
They don't have a class on analyzing data.
They don't. Who would you trust on this?
Dr. Malone, the expert on all things directly related to mRNA, or the person who knows what bullshit looks like?
The answer is you shouldn't trust either of us, right?
If you're trusting me, That's also a mistake.
The only thing I'm trying to teach you is what pitfalls in analysis.
I'm not telling you what the answer is.
How the hell would I know?
I don't know. I really don't.
I genuinely, genuinely don't know.
If everybody or some groups were better off with a vaccination, so-called vaccination.
I don't know. And if you think you know, then I would question how you know that, because I'm not seeing anything credible.
I'm seeing lots of data, seeing lots of experts, seeing lots of anecdotes, but nothing I would trust.
So if you do trust any of that, I would say that's an analytical mistake.
You could certainly be leaning heavily in one direction.
That's normal. That makes sense.
But if you're certain, you're locked in, that the vaccinations definitely were better than no vaccinations, or they're definitely either side, if you're sure about it, that's the only unreasonable position.
The only reasonable position is, I'm not sure, but I'm leaning one way or another.
That's fine. Leaning is okay.
Please stop with COVID talk.
This is not COVID talk.
If you believe this was about COVID, you have missed the thread.
This is about any kind of expert talking about any kind of data.
If you get that, you'll be the smartest people watching the news, right?
So now you see the pattern.
If it's a scientist showing you data, they are outside their field of expertise.
If it's a doctor showing you data, they're outside their area of expertise.
If it's a journalist showing you data, they're outside their area of expertise.
And every time you think that you're seeing expertise, you're wrong.
You're seeing the opposite.
So who is credible? The answer is nobody in the pandemic.
In the pandemic, you should trust exactly nobody.
There's just too much money sloshing around.
And people are so locked into their prior opinions that it would be like a big reputational hit.
Let me take an example.
Let's take Zuby.
Most of you know Zuby? Twitter, internet.
Rapper and also, I'd say, public philosopher.
Great guy. Probably one of the most appreciated and liked personalities on the internet.
Very popular. Now, Zuby has a very, you know, clear take on the vaccines and whether they are good or bad, right?
It doesn't matter what his opinion is.
But what if, take somebody who's a public figure like that and really has a brand connection to an opinion that really mattered to the world.
Could they ever change their mind?
Could, and again, I'm not picking on Zuby because he's a plus to the world in every way.
But what, you know, anybody could be wrong.
What if he's wrong? Or what if I'm wrong?
Now, I'm the only one who can't exactly be wrong because I'm telling you the data doesn't support any opinion.
So if it turns out that later we find out somehow that for sure it was one way or the other, will I have to correct anything I said?
Nope. I won't have to correct anything I've ever said.
I have nothing to correct no matter what we learn in the future.
But Zuby does. Zuby does.
If it turned out, and I'm not saying he's wrong, he could be right about everything.
He's a smart guy, right? He's smart, he pays attention, doesn't seem to fall for cognitive dissonance.
I don't really see that happening.
So he could be totally right, but not because of the data.
Because a rapper is not who you want to look to for the data.
Not a doctor, not a scientist, not a journalist, not a rapper.
So, every time you see somebody you think is an expert, but they're talking through the data, remember you're not hearing expertise.
You're hearing somebody in the wrong field talking to you.
Hauling. Now, I'm very interested in hauling here.
I always have to hide every day.
Because it's always, like, the most troll-like content.
And I always wonder if the only thing is to try to get me to react.
It has nothing to do with the content.
MRAs targeted...
All right, that was $20.
You really wasted.
All right. Don't spend $20 to give me your opinion of whether the vaccination worked or not.
That would be the worst money you've ever spent.
Like, do you think that you're 20?
I'm sorry, I don't mean to mock you, but I think you would be missing the whole plot if you think that anybody's mind could be changed with a one sentence about why something has risks.
All right. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I wanted to tell you.
Now, did I deliver on my promise that I explained to you why we can't agree on everything?
The reason we can't agree is that we keep thinking that the people showing us the data know what they're talking about.
But nobody can analyze data and it's all bad.
So literally, it doesn't matter who's talking, it's all garbage.
All garbage. The only people who are right are the ones who don't know.
Everybody else is guessing and trying to tell you that they were right all along.
And that, all right.
Here's a comment, not garbage.
If you get the vaccine, you still get COVID. Now, is there somebody here who doesn't know the argument?
And again, I'm not saying it's true.
But have you never heard the argument?
No. That the vaccine is supposed to protect you in terms of how sick you get?
Now, I'm not saying you believe it, but have you never heard the argument?
I'm actually curious.
Seriously. Have you never heard that argument?
I'm not backing the argument.
I'm just asking you, have you never heard that it's supposed to keep you healthier?
No way to know for sure, okay?
Again, that's the right answer.
But if you haven't heard the argument, then I really worry about your opinion.
How could you not have heard the argument?
If you're still talking about whether the shot keeps you from spreading it, nobody's on that topic.
Like, we've all moved on.
That's stipulated. We all know that it's not going to stop spread.
There's nobody on the other side of that.
No point in even bringing it up.
All right. So it blew your mind when I did the whiteboard and the two movies.
You mean today or otherwise?
All right. Did anybody have an aha moment?
I have to check my work here.
Did anybody have an aha moment when I showed you that all of these situations are the same?
Now, is it because you were already aware of it?
Thank you.
It's because locals, they were already aware of it.
That makes sense. And then over on YouTube, a little bit different reaction, which actually that tracks.
Because I don't know if the YouTube viewers, you don't know it, but since this is more general audience, and the locals' audience are people who have really paid attention to me longer, They do have different opinions.
There's a big difference between the people who have followed me a long time.
It's one thing to be aware of it, but when you see it in context, and I show you the pattern where it's always the case, that didn't change how you saw it.
Because I too was aware of it all, But until I put it all together, I couldn't see how we always have two movies.
See, it explains how we could have two movies, and it's entirely about our ability to, whether we're sophisticated in trusting data or not.
So your level of data sophistication really makes a difference here.
Yeah, lockdowns were awful.
We all agree. Somebody on YouTube says that they don't drink the Kool-Aid.
Yeah, you do. The YouTube people think they're the ones who don't drink the Kool-Aid.
You know who is the most hypnotized?
It's the ones who think they weren't drinking any Kool-Aid.
Like, if you think that only the other people are drinking the Kool-Aid, you're the most lost.
You could not be more lost than thinking it's the other people drinking the Kool-Aid.
If you're in that little world, I feel so sorry for you.
Lisa says, I pander to my paying crowd on locals.
That's literally the business model.
That literally is a description of what that is.
It's a special group of people who pay extra to be pandered to by me.
So, good analysis.
I guess I'm grifting.
Watch me grift by charging people for exactly what they know they're getting with my big grift.
Do you think the locals people don't know exactly what they're buying at this point?
They know exactly what they're getting.
The people who do the grift thing, like everybody who has an opinion is a grifter these days on Twitter.
Ah, you grifter. Tony says in all caps, are you drinking the Kool-Aid, Scott?
Tony, I don't know you, But I've formed a number of opinions about you from your one comment.
They're not positive.
All right. So I didn't talk about the omnibus bill, because everything you say about this is the same thing everybody says.
Do you want to do the omnibus bill?
The bill is this high.
Congress certainly did not read all the pages of the bill.
It will cause inflation.
It's a uni-party.
I don't like Congress.
There's nothing you can say about it, is there?
Nothing you can say about it.
It's just all been said.
There's nothing to add.
And you know what it's going to look like the next time they do a unibus?
Let me predict the future.
The next unibus...
It's going to be this tall.
Rand Paul will pose standing in front of the pile.
He will suggest that most people aren't going to read it.
People will complain about why we can't have the veto on line item, even though it's obvious why, because you can't get an agreement without it.
If you had the line item veto, you couldn't negotiate.
By the way, you all know that, right?
Do you all know why the line item veto will never happen in Congress?
Like, the president will never get that.
There's a good reason.
It's not a bad reason.
The good reason is the only way you can get enough people on one side of a vote is some of them have to be bribed.
And they're bribed with these little pork things like, all right, I know you hate this bill and people in your state will be mad at you, but if we built like a military base in your state, Maybe they'd let you be okay with this vote.
So if you have the line item veto, you don't get anything done.
So that's the trade-off.
It's like two bad situations, but we're in the least of the bad.
See, this bugs me like...
You know the stories of...
The screw that cost, you know, $50,000 or the hammer for the military project that was like $75,000.
And then all the people say, that's outrageous.
Don't charge $75,000 for a hammer.
And then you find out that the reason it's $75,000 is that they had to create and design exactly one hammer.
That's it. It was like one hammer ever.
And that's why it costs that much, exactly like it should.
But when the news gets a hold of it, they don't know how to do economics.
So the people who report it just say it's an overpriced hammer.
But then if you look into it even a little bit, the people say, well, we spent $75,000 to make the hammer.
That's not fake.
It takes a while to design it and create it, and if you're only going to make one, you've got to make a mold just for one thing.
$75,000. So the public can't even tell the difference between an economic bargain and an outrageous ripoff.
Can't even tell the difference. So most of these stories are fake.
I would like to call out, I think I told my local subscribers this once, but I'm going to make a prediction.
Do you remember the story about the four-minute mile and how it was believed nobody would ever run that fast until one person did?
And then when one person did, then other people could do it too.
And the way I learned it was that the psychology of it, once the psychology was broken, Then the humans could perform to a higher level.
I don't believe that.
I so don't believe that.
I think it had everything to do with maybe the footwear was better, maybe the training was different, maybe they learned a little more about nutrition.
I don't believe that.
It's like one of the most important formative stories of my entire life.
Was that, you know, if you got past your mental block, you could do great things.
And I'll bet none of it was true.
I'll bet none of that was ever true.
What do you think? Yeah, could be just the shoes were better, like you said.
It could be anything.
The sound barrier, is there a similar story about that?
Cerno almost going TDS and splitting the bass.
Well, I don't believe that Trump can ever put the base back together.
Because the vaccination thing...
By the way, I ran a poll.
How many people thought the vaccination was killing more people than the COVID? And, yeah, about a quarter of the people think the vaccination is killing more.
A quarter think that, roughly, that the vaccine...
So basically, it's split.
But about half of the respondents said you can't tell.
So who was right?
The ones who said Vax killed more, the people who said that the COVID killed more, or the 50% or so who said you can't tell.
Who's right? The ones who say you can't tell.
So that's the better answer, but there might be an answer, it's just we don't have access to it.
There might be like a reality, but that's not available to us with our current data.
Yeah, and a Twitter poll, of course, is not meant to be serious.
Of course.
All right.
Bad question.
You asked what the media thinks.
No, I didn't reread the question.
I did not. I mean, I see why you're saying that.
I said, you know, based on your reliable media sources.
But that's how everybody gets opinions.
It's not really about the media.
Well, so I see your analogy, and that's a good reason why analogies don't work.
So over on local, somebody made the analogy that I tell the story about some of my cube mates when I had a corporate job.
When I became a successful author, I was still in my cubicle.
And two people in cubicles next to me went on to become successful authors, like got books published.
And I always thought it was because I made it look approachable.
Like they saw me do it and they said, well, there's nothing magic about you.
It looks like I could do that too.
And they were right. And then they just did it.
Just like I did. So, but that's different than the four minute mile.
The difference is that all of us had the ability.
Like that part was a given.
It was only thinking of doing it that was different.
Once they thought of doing it, then they already had the ability.
But we don't know that that's the same situation with the running.
We don't know if they had the ability and just didn't use it, or if there was something that was changing at about the same time, like footwear technology, for example.
And I've told you before that I definitely doubt having small amounts of alcohol is good for your health.
Like, that is so not going to be true in the long run.
I would put a large bet, if there were any way to actually know for sure, that there's no amount of alcohol that's good for you.
I would put at least a very large bet on that.
When you get the vax again, you mean, well, I'm not getting the boosters, but you can't really go back and act like if you knew what you knew then.
If I knew what I knew then, I'd make the same decision.
If I know what I know now, I don't know.
Because I would have missed my vacation.
So, I don't know.
And you also have to make a distinction between making the right decision and getting a good outcome.
So, I would argue that I got the best possible outcome.
Because I have no known complications.
Yet. And I had a great vacation and it made me feel more comfortable during the pandemic.
So for me, I only got benefits and I got no downside.
But does that mean it was a smart decision?
Go. It all turned out great for me.
I got everything. I got a vacation and no downside.
So was it a good decision or a bad decision?
It's unknown. It's unknown.
Exactly. There's no way you can know that was a good decision.
The only thing you can know is what you did.
I can tell you what I did.
I can't tell you that was the right decision.
What if I have some medical problems I don't know about?
Well, I don't know.
Right? It's unknowable.
Totally unknowable. But would you agree that so far, I won't say it was the smart decision, but would you say, so far, I got everything I wanted?
Would you agree with that statement?
I'm one of the people who got everything they wanted.
Because I got the trip, and I got no side effects.
Right? I had full access to society with no side effects.
Now, that doesn't mean it was the right decision.
Because like we said, maybe I got lucky.
Maybe the odds were bad, but I just was one of the lucky ones.
I have no way to know. But if you're making fun of me for getting everything I want based on the path that I took, that's kind of sketchy.
There are a lot of people who mock me for my choices, and I think, I got everything I want, and no downside.
You did not, but you're mocking me.
Shouldn't the person who got everything they wanted at least be given the consideration that at least you didn't do it wrong?
I can't say I did it right.
But I didn't fall into a pit hole.
You got a divorce from the pandemic, too?
How many of you got divorced because of the pandemic?
No, I didn't refute my four-mile story.
Oh, that's pretty sad.
Yeah, I think there was some causation.
They just cause people to interact in a different way.
They're telling me I'm going to die over at Locals.
Yes.
Oh, you got divorced in advance.
Good, good. Current slaughter meter.
Well, let me give you a current update on what I think about the whole Trump running for president situation.
Yes. You don't know I got divorced?
I'm going to cut off the outside people from the Locals feed, because I think we got some...
If you want to...
I'm almost done here anyway.
Alright, so if you're not a subscriber, you just disappeared.
You seem happier single?
Totally. I'm so much happier single.
And if you had told me that would be the case, I think I would have been surprised.
But totally happier.
Totally happier. I don't know how relationships work.
I honestly don't. Like, I don't know how anybody does it.
Let me give you the, here's why I think I don't know how they work.
Let's say a traditional arrangement, like old time way, where the man is working, and the woman may or may not have kids, but that's her kind of domain, so she's not working. In 2022, that can't work.
That just won't work.
Do you know why? What the hell is a woman going to do all day?
Her kids go to school, or once they reach a certain age, you know, by the time they're 12, they just want to go in the room or play with their friends.
You barely ever see them.
So what would give a woman in that situation any satisfying life?
What's she going to do? Have lunch with the other moms?
Go to the gym? Like there's nothing there.
Just support her husband and have his shoes and his martini ready when he gets home?
Like, nothing like that works.
Alright, so a situation that can't work, like even on paper it doesn't work, is the man is working and the woman is not.
Now, I assume if you reverse that, it's the same.
Right? So let's be a little more 2022.
If you reverse it, and the woman is the only one working, and the man is at home not working, but let's say he has more childcare stuff, how is that ever going to work?
I mean, really, how will that ever work?
Because what is the guy's purpose?
The guy has no purpose?
Now, every now and then you see a situation where you think somebody figured it out, and I think that exists, right?
Like, everybody's different. When I look at, for example, my universal reference, who am I going to mention now?
Who's my universal reference?
It's like the type O blood.
There's somebody I mention all the time.
Yeah, Sertovich. So Sertovich uses social media to show a little behind the scenes, at least a little bit, of his family life.
But there's a situation where they have a really unique situation where they're both productive but in different ways.
He has a unique situation where he could be doing a productive thing while he's also home.
So he can actually do both things.
Now, I would say that's a big, big exception, wouldn't you?
I can't speak to the actual quality of his relationship.
But on paper, it looks like he figured it out.
To me, it looks like that's the closest I've seen to a model that could work.
Again, we're on the outside.
Nobody has any idea what anybody's relationship is like on the inside.
But from the outside, at least it works on paper.
That looks like a thing that could work.
Because those are two people who seem fulfilled and both involved with children.
That's about it. That's as good as you can do.
But now let's take the other example where they're both high-powered, high-income people.
And maybe they have kids or not, and the kids are handled by other caretakers and stuff, because they're both working during the day.
Can that work? Isn't that just two people who spend the day separately?
Like, then they get together and they spend all day with their co-workers who are clean and act nice and they look kind of attractive.
And then the other one spent all day with, you know, some men who are successful and, you know, they got it going on.
Then you come home to your spouse, both of you, And your spouse takes off the makeup, and the guy takes off his necktie, and then you turn into your slouch selves at home.
So you're looking at each other as slouches all day long, and then you go off to your separate high-powered jobs, and you're around people who have cleaned up.
Like, all those people are slouches at home, too, but at work, they look like they're killing it.
That can't work.
On paper, that can't work.
Right? Now again, there are individual differences.
You could find two people who will make anything work.
They're just the right personalities and the right situations.
And maybe Sernovich family is in that situation.
And good for them. Anybody who can crack this problem as my respect, because it's a tough one.
But to me it's just two situations that on paper can't work.
And we've organized American civilization around two ideas that largely don't even work on paper.
And then we wonder why they don't work in reality.
They don't work on paper!
It shouldn't be a surprise, right?
It should be exactly what you think.
And it is.
It's exactly what you think based on the situation.
Now, that said, I also know two people who have what looks like one of the best marriages I've ever seen, and they're two people who work high-power jobs, and their kid is out of the nest, so there's no kid stuff anymore.
But again, it's a special case, because they got together when they were 16, I think.
If you get together when you're 16 and you never know anybody else after that, that's a pretty solid base.
So every time you see a couple who makes anything work, whether it's one working or not, or both working, whenever you see it work, there's always a special case.
And that's like a really special case.
You know, basically hooking up at 16 and never being with anybody else.
So good for them. I believe they genuinely broke the code.
They actually figured out how to make it work.
What is Andrew Tate's theory?
By the way, I am so amused by the Andrew Tate stuff.
The fact that he's giving lifestyle and health-related advice while he drinks whiskey and smokes cigars, and he's giving relationship advice when he clearly has no relationship working at all.
And it works. Like, he actually pulls it off.
So this is a genuine compliment.
He totally pulls it off.
And I think it's the dichotomy or the fact that it doesn't look like it's supposed to look.
Like, there's something just off about the whole thing.
That's exactly why he attracts so much energy.
Which I think he does intentionally.
So it's all good. It's all smart.
But the fact that...
The fact that he's followed for his advice, and even his financial advice, his financial advice.
He's spending his money on, like, luxury sports cars.
Like, that's the worst financial, it's not advice, but it's the worst example you could ever give anybody.
Have you seen some black leaders talking lately?
And I say, the reason I say black leaders is so I can give myself some cover.
So this is not me.
This is black leaders.
You've heard this, right? So black leaders saying, if you talk to a bunch of white kids, or anybody who's not black, about their future, like what do you want to be, You get stuff like, oh, doctor or programmer or whatever.
And you talk to black kids, this is what black leaders say.
This is not me being racist.
I'm telling you what black leaders say about their own people.
They say, you talk to black kids and they say, I want to play basketball or, yeah.
It's like completely impractical.
And the black leaders are like, you got to fix that.
Or a rapper, right?
Yeah, rapper or basketball player.
Or athlete or something. And even the black leaders are like, there's no way this works.
There's no way this could work.
Like, we've got to fix that.
What's wrong with that? It's a good point.
It's a good point. Somebody says that when you survey black kids, they say that getting good grades is something white kids do.
Got to fix that.
Got to fix that point of view.
Yeah.
What do you consider unblocking sticks?
books.
Why should I? Let me ask you this.
If somebody shows a pattern of disrespect to you, do you think that in the, let's say, in considering charity and being a good person, that the higher level good thing to do would be to forgive them for disrespecting that the higher level good thing to do would be to forgive them for Oh, thank you, Emily.
Yeah.
Now, I've never removed anybody from my life and regretted it.
Have you? Have you ever removed anybody from your life and then later regretted it?
I mean, maybe it's happened, but I don't think it's ever happened to me.
So do you think I'll someday regret that I removed Sticks and Hammer from my Twitter feed?
I doubt it. I've never thought about it yet.
Never thought about it yet.
So if those of you who are enjoying his work Want to keep enjoying his work?
I say, great. Because he hasn't disrespected you, right?
But if he disrespects you in public, twice, well, I'm supposed to wait for the third time?
What am I supposed to do?
Wait for the third time? No.
He is a bad, toxic influence on me.
Now, he's not toxic to you, so you should be fans.
Because his content is very good.
I'm a big believer in his analytical abilities, and he adds value, and it's different from what other people are doing.
So it hits all the notes.
He does a good job. But my situation is just personal, and I would recommend that you be more like me as opposed to try to change my mind.
Be more like me. There's somebody in your life who's disrespecting you over and over again.
You know that, right? Somebody in your life is disrespecting you over and over again and you just keep coming back.
Stop it. Don't do it.
Just throw them out of your life and be done with them forever.
There's plenty of people. You don't have to deal with the bad ones.
Yeah. Alright.
Will I be visited by three ghosts this Christmas?
good chance.
Worst advice ever.
Oh, interesting.
Ruth says, I spoke to my doctor and stopped my cholesterol med and 1BP med.
Still taking 1BP med.
Feel a lot better. There you go.
Now, again, don't stop taking any drugs because it's something you heard on my livestream.
