Episode 1972 Scott Adams: Today I Will Trigger Viewers Into Cognitive Dissonance By Debunking Hoaxes
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Eric Swalwell vs. George Santos
Contrarian Peter Sweden
Bill Gates population reduction HOAX
Whiteboard: IQ
President Trump subpoena dropped
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Coffee with Scott Adams, the highlight of your life and civilization itself.
I don't think there's been a finer day.
But wait till tomorrow. Even better.
How would you like to experience some beverage with a little cognitive dissonance?
Some of you will be triggered by today's, well a lot of you actually, maybe two thirds of you, will be experiencing some serious cognitive dissonance.
And I'm doing it intentionally, so before we start, you should know that that's going to happen to two-thirds of you, but you don't know which ones.
It might be you, it might be somebody else.
Now, if it happens to you, you're just going to get angry, and you're going to swear that nothing like that happened.
Your reaction will be, I'm not in cognitive dissonance, darn it.
The words I say are making complete sense.
But they won't. They won't.
They'll be on the wrong topic and everything else.
All right. But before we get into that, how would you like to take your energy up to a level that almost nobody has ever experienced before?
Of course you do. And all you need is a cover mug or a glass, a tank or chalice or stye, and a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now. Go! Craig says, give it to me.
Trigger me. Well, I will.
I will. So yesterday, a bot told me that Elon Musk started following me on Twitter.
Which gets you a lot of attention, it turns out.
Because when the bots say that he follows somebody, you know, people definitely notice that.
Now, he has been following the Dilbert Twitter account for, I don't know, several months.
But now he's following me.
So, I guess I don't have any extra comment on that.
But how many times have I told you that what we've created here with this livestream is something fairly substantial.
It's almost like an augmentation to the Constitution or the Republic.
And what I mean by that is it's an efficient way for opinions to bubble up and get to the right people.
So, to the extent that your opinions, you know, are, let's say, unified on some topic, and to the extent which I tweet about it, you've got more visibility now.
So your visibility all went up.
So when I say that, you know, Elon Musk is following my Twitter account, that really is about you as well, because, you know, it's all part of one process.
All right. Remember I told you that I wanted Representative Santos, who now seems to be the biggest liar Congress has ever known, I wanted him to keep his job specifically because, why? Why did I say he should keep his job?
Do you remember? Because it would be funny when the other members of Congress say he should quit because he's a liar.
Now, you can't tell me that won't be funny.
And sure enough, Eric Swalwell has weighed in.
Eric Swalwell, to suggest that he should be investigated for being such a liar.
Now, is that not funny?
You do not disagree.
That is funny.
I don't have to add anything to that, do I? There's no work for the professional humorist.
The professional humorist may take the day off because the straight line or the setup does all the work.
All right, here's my joke of the day.
Eric Swalwell says that you can't have liars in Congress.
And I'm done. Setup and punchline.
Setup and punchline.
All in one little neat package.
You can't beat that. As a professional humorist, I appreciate the efficiency of this situation.
So keep that Santos guy in office.
We want to see... I want to see Adam Schiff rail against this liar.
I'd also like to see CNN bring on John Brennan to say we could never have a liar like this in government.
Oh, Eric, just because he's a dick.
That's all. So being a dick to me is reason for being blocked.
All right. Peter Sweden, who I believe at one point was banned on Twitter, but he's back.
And he's one of the people who's notable for saying things about the pandemic, which are not mainstream medical beliefs.
Now, I'm not saying that he is right or wrong.
And we're going to enter the cognitive dissonance territory, okay?
Now, here's the first way you can identify which one of you are getting triggered, because a lot of you are getting triggered.
The first way is you won't be able to stay on topic, all right?
So look for the people who make Very excited comments that might be true, might be true facts, might not be, but they won't quite be on topic.
It'll be sort of in the same zip code, but it'll be like they're intentionally missing the point, all right?
You ready? Let's do this.
So Peter Sweden, notable, you know, pandemic, let's see, what would I say?
Pandemic, What's a name for somebody who says something that's not popular?
But not a negative way.
Polemic? No, rogue.
Rogue. Dissenter. Dissenter.
Contrarian. Contrarian.
That's it. I got it. Okay.
Thank you. You got me. Contrarian is the word I'm looking for.
Because I wanted a word that doesn't say anything about whether he's right or wrong.
Can we agree on that?
All right. So rule number one, we're not saying whether he or his points are good or bad.
So if any of you were to make a point in the next few minutes and say, but his point is good, you're off topic.
All right, you ready? Let's see how many people will go off topic to show that they're in cognitive distance.
He tweeted a picture of the VAERS report.
And show that there's, you know, gigantic number of reports in the VAERS database for pandemic-related stuff, okay?
Doesn't even matter what.
For our purposes, doesn't matter what.
Just a huge number of extra VAERS, VAERS meaning that there were negative reports of maybe a side effect from, I think, the vaccination.
Now, You all know that the VAERS reports are not substitutes for randomized controlled trials.
You agree, right? It's simply people saying, hey, you might want to look into this.
And if lots of people are reporting the same thing, well, then you definitely want to look into it.
So can we all agree that if the VAERS report shows any anomaly that the way you treat that is not as a fact, But it's something you definitely want to look into.
Everybody agree? So far?
Okay. So, I tweeted that I was glad that Twitter had added a context note.
The context note basically debunked the interpretation of the VAERS thing, and also mentioned that anybody can put things on VAERS, etc.
What do you think of that? So my comment is that the context notes from Twitter are good.
Now your comment, which will be off-topic, is?
You can't do randomized control, right?
That's off-topic, cognitive dissonance.
Who else? Who else can't deal with the fact that it's simply a context question?
Go ahead. I blocked somebody's wife and he says I'm jealous.
Anybody else? Come on.
Come on. Man, make an argument for why the VAERS report is right or wrong, which is totally not the topic.
Oh, I got everybody quiet today.
Nobody wants to change the topic?
I warned you too much.
All right. So, is everybody here on the same wavelength?
That a gigantic anomaly is worth looking into, but it's not a confirmation of anything, right?
Okay, good. Yeah.
All right. So that's good.
You did really well on that.
Do you think you'll do as well on the next one?
Let's see. By the way, I'm quite proud of you.
I guess my objective, you know, I've got a number of things I always like to accomplish, but among them, I would like my audience to be the most sophisticated Analyzers of the news.
The people who know immediately what's wrong.
Like, you see it immediately.
And I'm gonna give you another one in a minute that's gonna be really tough for you.
This was the starter. This was just the appetizer.
It's gonna get tougher. All right.
Here it is. I ran a poll.
I said, how many of you believe some group of elites or leftists, and this could include Bill Gates, right?
So he could be on your list.
But how many believe some group of elites or leftists, or someone important, wants to reduce the population of Earth?
How many say that that is a true statement?
That there are some elites, some people in power, who want to reduce the population of Earth?
A lot of you say yes. Some say no, but some say yes.
Now, how many of you, let me ask more specifically, how many of you have seen Bill Gates, either a video or seen his quote where he directly says, he says it directly in a video and also in a quote that he's looking to, wants to reduce the population of Earth.
How many of you have seen those?
I've seen a lot of yeses, yeses.
Now, those of you who have seen those things, do you know they're hoaxes?
Here comes the cognitive dissonance.
The video of Bill Gates saying directly that he wants population reduction, it's actually a voiceover.
It's just a hoax.
It's not even his voice.
But there's also a quote that says it directly, right?
I mean, there's a quote of real words that came out of his mouth that say it directly, right?
No, there isn't. No, that doesn't exist.
It's widely quoted, but it doesn't exist.
There's a larger quote which they Ruppard, whoever did it, somebody Ruppard it, they took a real quote and combined it, they changed its context.
So if you see it out of context, it looks exactly like He wants to reduce the population.
The actual context is he's talking about reducing something else.
It's actually not even about population.
So you can't actually find any evidence of Bill Gates wanting to reduce the population.
Now, how many of you believe me?
How many of you believe me that it's a hoax, and a well-documented one?
We know exactly what the real video says, and we know what the hoax says.
We know exactly what the real quote says, and we know what the hoax says.
How many believe me that it's a hoax?
Just the Bill Gates part.
Just the Bill Gates part. Now, if there's anybody left who still believes that Bill Gates...
is interested in population decline.
I don't mean to insult you, but what I'm going to do next might be a little tough for some of you.
This is not personal.
I'm not trying to insult you, genuinely.
I'm trying to make sure I have the most educated live stream.
This will be a little tough, but I think you can handle it.
On the Bill Gates population decline, you should not have had to do a fact check.
You should not have had to research that.
Here's why. It doesn't pass the really test, you know, where you go, really?
Because up to around, this is just my guess, an IQ of about 120, You could imagine that people maybe don't understand how population and economics work together.
In other words, if you believe that reducing the population of Earth could ever be good for Earth, That you don't understand economics and population.
You might understand economics alone without the population.
You might understand population, but you don't understand that a growing population is absolutely required for economic stability.
It's required.
There's no way around it.
Everybody at Bill Gates' IQ level knows that.
Everybody. All right, now that's your challenge.
Find somebody that you believe is well above average and ask them, what's better for the economy?
A growing population or a shrinking population?
They'll all give you the same answer.
It will be 100% of the people will say, oh, it has to grow, but you want to grow wisely.
It has to grow, but it should be a controlled, smart growth.
You don't want to wildly just overpopulate.
Now, some people say that there's a Rockefeller, you know, shady Rockefeller group that recommended back in 1975 That the policy of the United States should be to reduce, you know, out of control population growth.
True or false? That in 1975, it was believed that population growth was the problem.
True. True.
When I was that age, I'm old enough to remember it, everybody was worried, all the smart people.
The people up here, they were all worried that the population was getting out of control.
But, Smart people watched what happened when countries got richer.
And they learned that, wait a minute, every single time a country gets richer, their birth rate goes down.
So it turned out it was like a self-correcting problem.
Now, I ran a little poll, and I asked how many of you believe some group of elites or whatever want to reduce the population of Earth?
72% of you said yes.
You're all wrong. This one is clean-cut.
There are a lot of things that we talk about where a difference in opinion or priorities, different of, like, projection and stuff.
You could have lots of reasons to disagree, but this isn't one of them.
This is one that there is no room for actual disagreement.
It's almost like physics.
It would be like disagreeing with gravity.
You need a growing population to have a good economy, and every person who pays attention and is at least a little bit smart, they all know it.
There are no elite people who want to reduce the population of Earth.
But you might hear people say, you know, there might be, say, some African country that's getting ahead of itself, right?
So you can easily imagine some individual place has more population growth than locally they can grow food.
But that's not the big picture.
Now, how many of you are saying to yourself, huh, I used to think that there were smart people who wanted to reduce the population of Earth, but now that you've explained it this way, I can see your point.
How many people have I convinced to change their mind?
If you haven't changed your mind about this, you're in cognitive dissonance.
This one is not the kind where there's any room for disagreement.
There really isn't. You won't find any disagreement for people who understand the topic and are reasonably smart.
None. Now, if you'd like to test this, I'd like you to find that person in your own life.
See if you can find a person who actually has the opinion you believe is widespread.
Nobody. Now, you might say to yourself, but Scott, we're only talking about the elites.
The elites definitely want less population.
Maybe not smart people in general, but the elites.
No, they don't.
It would be terrible for the elites.
The elites don't want a shrinking population because those are their customers.
They want more people paying taxes, more people buying their stuff.
They only want more people.
But again, In a controlled way, not out of control growth.
All right. How many people said, when I asked, you know, is there a group of elites, blah, blah, blah.
So apparently, the people who said, you never know, I think are the same as the, you know, it's close to a quarter of the people said, you never know.
But you do know.
I don't want to make fun of a quarter of the people who answered this poll, but that 25% thing just keeps on working.
The wrong answer is you don't know.
Now, if I ran this poll again, you should all be able to answer that.
You definitely know. No, there's nobody.
Nobody has that opinion in the elites.
It is a non-existent opinion.
How many of you are having, like, the biggest mindfuck of your life right now?
Because you were positive that was true.
How many of you were positive it was true until, like, just now?
Well, 72% of my polls said they were positive it was true just an hour ago.
Now, is anybody having a negative feeling about me?
Because that would be cognitive dissonance too.
Is anybody thinking, oh no, he's not trying to help us.
He's part of the elite.
Do you think I'm part of the elite who's trying to pull the wool over your eyes?
For what reason would that be?
What reason would I have to try to dupe you on this question?
None. All right, well, I don't know if it's because I primed you so well, but I think you're doing well.
You're handling this very well.
Those of you who are not changing your mind, you already knew that population growth was good.
Are you watching what's happening?
This is kind of remarkable.
It's kind of remarkable.
Because I would have expected far more...
Word salad. So, I feel like maybe we are accomplishing something.
You know, if the only thing I could accomplish is that my audience would learn how to change their mind without cognitive dissonance, that would be amazing.
Do you realize what an upgrade to your thinking process that would be?
If you could actually learn to just change your mind.
It's the rarest of talents.
But I feel like maybe this is a group that's better at it, you know, through filtering.
This is pure denial, says Vince.
Well, Vince, it's pure denial.
So you believe that there are some, even though there's no evidence of it whatsoever and nobody smart would ever believe it, you still believe this really big trick.
Well, let's move on.
There was a new study that said that women can detect who's married versus unmarried by sniffing their t-shirts and looking at their photos.
Do you see any problem with this?
Let's see how trained you are to identify bullshit studies.
So women can identify single men by sniffing their t-shirts while looking at pictures.
Now, don't you think that looking at the picture part is the important part?
Do you think the sniffing was how they figured it out?
Or do you think it was just looking at the picture?
Because I'm not a woman, but I can pick out married men by the picture.
Is there anybody who wouldn't be able to identify married men by the picture?
Yeah, you can. You totally can.
You absolutely can.
And one of the things that we know is that single people have higher testosterone.
How many of you knew that?
That your testosterone goes down as soon as you get married, and especially if kids are around.
If kids are around, your testosterone just disappears practically.
Yeah. Now, and testosterone absolutely changes how you look.
In the long run, a lot.
You know, it can make you rounder and softer versus more angular and cut.
But even in the short run, I think, even in the short run, because testosterone is entirely the chemical that makes men happy.
How many women do this, by the way?
That, you know, we all need our dopamine, our serotonin, whatever.
But the difference between happy and unhappy for a man is their testosterone.
You can actually feel a high testosterone day if you're male.
Can you guys confirm this?
Men, you can feel a high testosterone day, and you can feel a low testosterone day.
And the high testosterone days, you can do anything.
You have no fear.
The biggest fear I have when my testosterone is clearly high, the biggest fear I have is that I don't have any fear.
And that's a problem.
Right? And you know it when it's happening.
Like, there are days I'm walking down the street and I think, God, I hope nobody starts a fight with me today, because I think I would just end them.
And it has nothing to do with being angry.
It wouldn't even be about temper.
It would just be you get your business done.
It's just a feeling of, well, if I have to kill that attacker, I guess I'll get on it, right?
It's just this feeling of overwhelming capability.
Now, you don't think you could pick that up in somebody's eyes?
You don't think you can pick somebody who knows their testosterone has been drained from them?
Versus somebody who's like, you ready to go?
You can totally tell by looking at the face.
Now, can they also detect the scent?
I think so. Probably.
Probably.
For example, if you're smelling a married person's T-shirt, you might smell the desperation.
Yeah, dogs can smell fear.
If a dog can smell fear, I'm pretty sure a woman can smell a married man.
It can't be that different.
Basically the same problem.
All right. Now, I've got a prediction.
Been making this prediction for a while, but because of the pandemic, I think society is ready for it.
There is, in front of us, at some point in our near future, a real big reckoning, public reckoning, with birth control pills.
Because, as you know, a birth control pill changes the hormonal, you know, situation of a woman.
And, as many but not all people will tell you anecdotally, it seems to change their personalities.
And, scientifically, Women are less attracted to their mates when they're on birth control.
Which actually makes perfect sense.
Because you would imagine that evolution Would make you hornier when you're able to have babies and less horny when you're not.
And I think the monthly cycle demonstrates that.
Now, that's not guaranteed, I suppose, but it makes sense.
You would totally expect women to be less attracted In any situation in which they're not fertile and know it.
Now, I don't even necessarily think it has to be a bodily change.
I think if your brain knows you can't have a baby, it might actually also have a change on your chemistry.
Just speculating. But here's what I think.
I think because the pandemic has ruined our trust in big pharma, That people are going to ask questions that they just wouldn't have asked before.
Mike, don't make the birth control as a depopulation.
Nice try. But you still have to believe somebody wants to do it.
It's not enough to say that it exists.
It's not enough to say that people have options for having babies.
That's not a question of intent of the elites.
It's just something that's an option.
There might be intent, but there's no evidence of that.
You can want to have sex without wanting to have babies, yes.
But I believe that women...
Let's get rid of the trolls.
Goodbye. Any more?
All right. So I think that the trust in Big Pharma is low enough that we can have an honest conversation about birth control, which I believe cripples women.
I believe they become personally disadvantaged, and they're less easy to be around.
I don't know that. I would say that...
I'll make an analogy, because you love analogies, to the VAERS report.
I'm not saying I know for sure that birth control is ruining marriages and relationships and lives everywhere.
I'm saying that it seems so obvious, anecdotally, that if we're not making this a really high priority, something's wrong.
And it's probably because people trusted Big Pharma until recently.
So that's my prediction.
The pandemic lack of trust in Big Pharma will start to bleed over into birth control, and I expect you'll see a big movement of people who don't want to be on birth control.
And it's not because they don't want to...
It's not because of babies.
It'll be entirely because how it makes them feel.
Just... That's my prediction.
Alright, here's some news from Russia.
Apparently Russia is allowing Russian soldiers to freeze their sperm, you know, so in case they die, their wife can have their little sperm baby.
But, I don't know, it feels like I'm no military expert, but correct me if I'm wrong, were the Russian soldiers not already freezing their balls off?
Because is that a big change?
Because I think you could just take a dead Russian soldier, say, well, he's dead already, just cut his balls off and take them home to the wife, because the balls are frozen, right?
I mean, they'll be frozen solid.
So you could just cut off their balls, throw it in a bag, keep it frozen, send it home, boom, cheaper than a sperm bank.
So as long as the Russian soldiers are already freezing their balls off, it feels a little unnecessary.
I'm joking. I'm joking about their balls.
But if I were a Ukrainian, let me tell you what I would do with this information.
If I were a Ukrainian, I would make sure every single Russian citizen knew that Russia didn't care about the soldiers.
They only wanted to keep their balls.
We don't care about the entire soldier, obviously.
We're sending him into this meat grinder.
But we do care about their balls.
Do you know why they care about their balls?
Do you know why the government doesn't care if they die in the meat grinder, but they do care about their balls?
Because Russia does not want to have a decreasing population.
You get that? Russia knows that a decreasing population is the end of Russia.
They have to have babies.
So yes, they're willing to even freeze your sperm and send you off to die, but at least you can have some babies later if you want.
I know the balls don't make babies by themselves.
You may have detected that that was a humor bit.
Years knew. Alright.
So if I were the Ukrainians, I would use this as PR. Because what is it that Russian men care about more than anything in the world?
Is it their elbows?
Is it their ears?
No, it's their balls.
It's their balls. And vodka.
The two things that Russian men care the most about is vodka and their balls.
So, if the Russian government is telling them that their balls are in jeopardy, hey, I started a war, you're probably going to lose your balls.
But, you know, it would be good for, I don't know, some historical reason for Russia or something.
But you're going to lose your balls.
So, remember, persuasion is about accessing the irrational part of the brain.
It's not about the logic of it.
Men are actually more afraid of losing their balls than they are afraid of most things.
So you just say, you know, you better freeze your sperm because you go to Ukraine and you're not going to have balls when you come back.
Get a Russian ball, make a Rob Reiner.
You're stretching.
Alright. How in the world did I learn only today that Bill Cosby is a free man?
How did I miss that story?
Did anybody miss that too?
Do you know that he's totally free?
Like, not even on parole.
He's like, free.
I didn't even know it until today.
Apparently it happened a little while ago.
Yeah, so I guess his case got overturned by a higher court.
And the reason for the overturning, it wasn't terrible.
Like, it's not justice for sure.
There's no justice happening here.
But the legal reason for overturning, I actually agreed with.
I mean, it's a horrible outcome.
But the legal reason was a technical one, that a prosecutor had promised him he wouldn't be brought up on charges on this specific case he got arrested.
He got convicted of.
That he wouldn't be brought up on charges if he testified in a civil case.
Because the thinking was it would be too hard to convict him on a criminal case, but at least the victim could get some money if he'd at least be willing to deal with it on a civil basis so he doesn't go to jail.
So that was the deal.
And Cosby accepted the deal.
Now, it wasn't written, but I guess it was spoken at one point so they can confirm the deal actually existed.
There's a tape of it, I guess.
And I hate to say it, but I agree with the upper court.
A deal's a deal. And it's terrible.
It's terrible. I think it was written, you're right.
Yeah, it probably was written.
But the argument was that the next prosecutor said, I didn't make the offer, right?
So the next prosecutor said, oh, that doesn't bind me.
But the upper core said, it sure as hell binds you.
It's the same job. Yeah, it does bind you.
And I agree with that. I agree with the decision.
I hate the fact that he's released, of course.
But tough choices.
Tough choices. And he's actually considering going back on the stand-up comedy tour.
How in the world is that going to work out for him?
How in the world is that going to work out?
I don't know. So Rasmussen had a poll about Trump's taxes and asked how many people would like to see Congress when Republicans have some control in the House?
How would they like to see some revenge?
And see the other congresspeople's, whoever voted to see his tax returns, maybe we should see their tax returns.
54% say, yeah, let's see his accuser's tax returns.
What do you think?
Well, I have two feelings about that.
First feeling is, Why do we think that modifying the republic to make revenge a main element of the republic, why do we think that's a good idea?
That's like the worst idea ever.
On the other hand, can you allow your side to get pushed without pushing back?
Well, I don't like the word revenge.
I do like mutually assured destruction.
Mutually assured destruction totally works for me.
I don't like revenge. As soon as you allow yourself that you can have a revenge-based system, then you're off the rails.
As soon as revenge is even a word that you allow into the conversation, I don't want any part of that system.
I don't want to get revenge on anybody.
I don't want it to get revenge on me.
No revenge. But mutually assured destruction can be very productive.
You know, if you do this to us, we guarantee it's going to happen back.
So on that basis, I approve of looking at the tax returns of anybody who has to look at this.
I do think that that's a guardrail or, let's say, a risk that should be introduced into the system.
Because I don't think it's unreasonable to ask to see somebody's tax returns under certain situations.
It has to be the right situation.
But there should be a cost to it.
It can't be free. So let's put a price on it and then see if they want to pay it.
So I'm all in favor of opening up the tax returns of anybody who wanted to see his.
Especially since there's no specific accusation, right?
If there were some specific accusation, I would say, okay, the other people don't have any specific accusations, so we're not going to go just fishing around in their taxes just to see if there's a problem.
But that's exactly what they're doing to Trump.
They're just going to fish around.
So that has to be equal.
That has to work both ways.
Because then you have a healthier risk-reward profile in your government, and then maybe the republic can actually work.
But revenge now.
You've got to get rid of revenge. All right.
Did you see a fake news that the White House COVID advisor, Dr.
Jha, according to the fake video that you'll see on video, he admitted on a recent Zoom call that, quote, no study in the world that shows that masks work.
Number one, did he say that?
Yes, he did. That's an exact quote.
Does that blow your mind?
It's a fake quote, but it's also real.
Do you know how they get a real quote that's also fake?
They Rupar it. Yeah, the Rupar is you take, it's a real quote, but it's incomplete because they take the context down.
Do you know what the end of the sentence was?
The end of his sentence was, very well.
In other words, there's no study in the world that shows that masks work very well.
The whole context is missing.
I'm guessing the context was, do you need vaccinations?
If you're wearing masks, why do you need vaccinations?
I don't know if that's the context, but it would make sense.
Well, if you were answering that question, he would say, there's no study that say masks work that well, so well that you don't need vaccinations.
I'm not promoting vaccinations.
This is an imaginary conversation by somebody else, right?
So that's probably the context.
But somebody took the very well part, which would say that masks do work, just not very well.
And reversed it to say that there's no study that says they work at all.
Now, I'm not supporting masks.
I don't want any mandates.
I don't know what the studies say because I don't believe any study about masks.
But this is fake news.
Would you all agree? It's fake news.
Yeah, so just know that.
Oh, speaking of Dr.
Drew, I caught a spaces, the spaces portion of his show.
And you have to hear it.
It's one of the best podcasts about anything that I've seen in a long time.
And he's having a conversation with another doctor, and the two of them are talking about the difficulties of knowing what's true and what isn't in the medical field, and how doctors don't really have all the training they need To analyze the studies and the data.
It's really good.
So I retweeted it.
You can find that in Dr.
Drew's feed, or you'll see the retweet in mine on Twitter.
Highly recommend it.
It's like 15 minutes that will really put some context on it for you.
How many of you saw that...
Andrew Taint and Greta Thunberg are trending together today.
Is everybody up to date on that news?
Now, I'm hesitant to even report this story, because Greta did something that, to me, is unconscionable.
So, you know, I have my complaints about Greta and climate change, but what Greta tweeted is completely unacceptable.
She did body shaming, right?
Now, body shaming, I think you know, I don't do.
I'm totally against it.
There's just nothing good about that, right?
Now, so I don't do it for people who are overweight, because I understand there's a, you know, everybody's different.
I don't do it for if you're missing a leg.
I'm not going to body shame you for missing a leg.
But let me tell you the story.
So the story is, you know, what's his name?
Andrew Tate was trying to mock her and trying to win some points by saying he's had lots of cars and he pollutes or creates a lot of CO2 and so on.
And then she responded with a hashtag, which the hashtag humorously...
Humorously, accuses him of having a male body part that's undersized.
Now, why is that okay?
Well, why is the left okay with body shaming suddenly?
And everybody is, go Greta!
That was some great body shaming.
Is it because it's a man you don't like?
So therefore it's okay?
So if there was, let's say, an overweight woman you didn't like, then you could do some body shaming?
Is that what you're saying? What kind of standard is that?
No, I hate to do it, but I think Greta is in disgusting territory.
Disgusting. Disgusting.
On the other hand, he does have a lot of sports cars.
Trying to be even-handed here.
On one hand, no body shaming.
On the other hand, he has a lot of sports cars.
I don't know why anybody needs so many.
I don't know why. It's just a fact that you can process.
Here, Trump has been proven right again.
Because Biden is restricting travel from China.
Do you remember when Trump restricted travel from China, when the pandemic was new?
And what did Biden say?
He said that Trump was being racist against Asians by temporarily saying we'd better halt our immigration to make sure we can protect ourselves.
And now... Biden is requiring a negative COVID test if you're coming from China.
Same damn thing.
So just add this to your list of things Trump was right about that Biden would have to copy reluctantly.
So Biden is now copying Trump reluctantly after having criticized him for the very same thing.
Speaking of Trump, so Trump was subpoenaed by that January 6th hoax committee, and they withdrew because, I guess, Harmeet Dhillon went after them effectively.
I think this is the reason.
So I think Harmeet went after them on separation of powers.
You know, that the president should be separate and not beholden to the Congress.
So if Congress can subpoena the president, it's a pretty good argument.
And apparently it succeeded.
If Congress can basically bitch slap the president, You know, outside of the realm of impeachment, which is specified, then it's not a true separation of powers.
And I have to admit, I would not have thought of that one.
I guess that's why I'm not a lawyer.
But that was a good play.
So, well played.
Hard meat. Nicely done.
Trump has said some things about abortion and Social Security in a Breitbart interview.
So, the first thing that Trump says is that there are two traps that Republicans fall into.
One is being open to adjusting Social Security, which Trump quite accurately, quite correctly says, no, that's a contract.
That's a contract with the people who paid Social Security.
You can't violate the contract.
Now, how much do you love the fact that Trump says that?
Now, he's being political when he says it, but his reason is you don't go back on a deal.
I fucking love that.
I just love that.
Like, I want my president to say, you know what?
You don't go back on a deal with the American people.
Even if you have a reason.
Even if you have a good reason.
You know, our budget's in trouble.
That's a good reason. But just saying we're not going to go back on a deal with the American people, that's strong.
That's exactly the kind of strength I'd like to hear.
So that's a good move.
His other advice to the Republicans is about how to talk about abortion.
And Trump says you have to have the three exceptions.
In order to get elected.
Now, it's not necessarily his personal opinion, but he's saying politically, you're going to have to say that abortion would be okay under three exceptions, as long as it's within the time period, I guess, of, what is it, rape, incest.
What's the third one?
Rape, incest, and oh yeah, the health of the mother, the life of the mother, if it's to save the mother's life.
Now, I'm not giving you an opinion one way or the other, because my opinion on abortion is that the consensus of women should be leading that, not the opinion of a man.
So don't imagine you're hearing my opinion about abortion.
I'm completely recusing myself.
I'm going with the female preference.
I think that's just a better way to organize society.
And now, the question you ask is, is there anything like that the other way?
Is there anything where you say, hey, women should just stay out of this question?
Yes. Circumcision.
Stay out of it. Let the men figure it out.
And we'll let you do your thing.
Let us do our thing.
Now, it's not that you can't have an opinion, but I don't want to listen to it.
I just wouldn't want to listen to it.
All right. What do you think?
Do you think that Trump's political instincts...
Let's see if we can keep it to the political.
Forget about whether you like the three exceptions.
Is he right politically?
Because I think he is.
Right? Yeah. Now, when I listen, one of the things you forget about Trump, because he creates so much activity and makes your brain catch on fire and stuff, one of the things you forget about him is how savvy he is.
He's just smarter about politics.
Now, he has his excesses and he says some things that get him in trouble and everybody can have their own opinions about that.
But in just a pure political calculation, should you say this or should you say that, he's really good at this.
And you forget how good he is until you're reminded by this.
This is exactly right, politically.
Again, not in terms of policy, necessarily.
As a woman, you think men should be part of the abortion conversation?
Fine. And if those men that you talk about influence you, that's fine too.
I only make the decision for myself.
Was that clear? I'm not recommending that other men stay out of it.
I guess I should have clarified that.
I'm saying I should stay out, because I'm a man, a very personal feeling.
I don't imply that you should feel the same way.
That's just my personal feeling.
All right. Half of all fetuses are male?
Yeah. You know, I mean, I understand the argument.
I'm just saying that society is better if you let the people with the most skin in the game have the larger part of the decision, just in general.
All right. Scott, you did recommend men stay in there for political reasons.
Yes. Yes.
I still recommend that.
Is that conflicting with anything I said?
Men can do anything they want.
I put no restrictions on men.
But if the men talk about it, they're hurting themselves politically.
But they can do it. And I think if they think the issue is important and they're willing to take a hit to their political futures, absolutely.
That would be a completely rational decision.
Oh, yeah, it'll hurt me politically, but I have to say what I have to say.
Perfectly respectable. I have full respect for that point of view.
It's just not mine.
Where would someone take an IQ test?
Well, the Mensa organization offers them, because you have to pass some kind of IQ test to be in the organization.
So that's where I took one.
And you need to be...
I wouldn't take an online IQ test.
Yeah. Oh, that's true.
Somebody on Locals says, if you're already a local subscriber, you've already passed the IQ test.
I endorse that. Yeah.
If you're already a local subscriber, even if you weren't a genius before, you probably are pretty close now.
Your IQ is over 140.
Is that good? Yeah, that's pretty close to the Mensa.
The thing you should know about IQ tests is that one is not equivalent to the other.
So if you scored a 135 on one IQ test, it could actually be a better score than a 140 on a different test, because they're not exactly comparable like that.
So being in the top, let's say 1%, would be a different number on two different tests.
Yeah, if you were tested in grade school, your IQ can actually change quite a bit.
Did you know that? That your measurable IQ can go up if you're doing all the right stuff.
So if you've developed your brain and all the good ways that people develop their brains, your IQ would be higher than it was when you were a kid.
And functionally, it would be a lot higher.
Because if you have a talent stack and you've exposed yourself to the right kinds of skills that work well together so you can see the whole field, you would have...
So that's what I say about the talent stack.
The talent stack is when you organize your skills that really fit together.
So you're not just somebody who knows about climate change, you're somebody who's also a good public speaker.
And suddenly you're twice as useful.
You know about the topic, but you can also teach it.
Twice as good. So if you're putting together, you know, different skills that fit together well, especially the ones that give you, let's say, insight into the other fields, Then you're functionally smarter.
Your useful IQ, for all practical purposes, could be up, you know, 20 or 50%.
So anybody who says you can't get smarter is totally wrong.
You can totally get smarter.
You just have to do the obvious things that would make you that way.
Somebody says their IQ is 420.
Well, I'll tell you, my IQ is 420...
At least part of every day.
Part of every day my IQ is 420.
Which is interesting because I do feel smarter for the first 10 minutes.
Yeah, you should feel smarter now than you were in high school.
I would think so. All right, that, ladies and gentlemen, is the conclusion of my prepared notes.
I'm going to go talk to the locals' people privately, and thanks for joining, YouTube.
