Episode 2004 Scott Adams: Alternative WEF, Dogbert Takes On Canada, Biden Documents Scandal & More
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
CNN ratings at nine year low
Dilbert today on Jordan Peterson's situation
Social media is a drug
Medical school rankings based on diversity
Sweden's pandemic success
My tragic lack of skills
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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, the best thing that'll ever happen to you in your whole damn life.
And if you'd like to increase your enjoyment level, I know it's hard to imagine you could even do it at this point.
We're reaching such lofty levels.
Well, there's one thing you can try.
One last thing you can try to increase your enjoyment.
And all you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tank or chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dope of being here today.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
And it happens now.
Go.
Let me ask you a question, fine people.
Do you believe you can tell the difference between good news and bad news with your common sense, and your judgment, and your instincts, and your heuristics?
Well, sometimes it's not so clear.
Sometimes we can't tell the difference between good news and bad news.
For example, California is suffering a drought for a number of years.
What would be good news if you were suffering a drought?
Rain.
Not just rain, but a lot of rain.
A lot of rain.
In fact, California got so much rain that it made a dent in the drought.
So the news today is The dangerous side to this, oh yeah, there's a dangerous side to not having a drought.
It's that the plants and trees will grow so quickly with all that water, that when they inevitably dry out in the summer, it's going to be a forest fire catastrophe.
Right.
So the good news is the drought's over.
The bad news is we'll go up in flames.
And you won't be able to go outdoors in the summer.
So, is there anything that Tinder can't ruin?
I'll just let that one sit there for a while.
Is there anything that Tinder can't ruin?
You can just fill in the rest yourself at home.
Well, I saw a review, I think it was on CNN, that said there's a new show on that's apparently a banger.
It's a banger.
I think that's like a British word for good.
And I said to myself, wow, are you kidding me?
There's something worth watching on television?
But before I read the review, before I read the review, I realized what was going on.
What does it mean in 2023?
When there's a movie or a TV series that's excellent.
What's that mean?
It's really, really good.
Yeah.
It was basically Brokeback Mountain.
Yeah.
So it had to be either Holocaust or Brokeback Mountain.
Had to be LGBTQ.
Had to be a trans in there somewhere.
Right?
So I'm reading the review, it's like, and the love story between these two men.
Oh, okay, I get it.
Best thing that's ever been on television.
Because it's a love story between two men.
And that's all you need to know.
Best thing on television ever, since the beginning of time.
Probably win a lot of awards.
CNN's ratings have reached a new nine-year low.
And this is why we call Greg Guffield the Thanos.
of news.
He's destroyed half of his competition already.
But that's only part of the story.
Apparently, CNN notched its... I saw a Megyn Kelly tweet, I saw her talking about it.
She said it got its lowest ratings in nine years, but it's also the lowest rating across every category of the day.
So every hour of the day, a new low.
Now here's the funny thing.
On Twitter, you can read the comments of the ex-CNN viewers and how unhappy they are.
Do you know why they're so unhappy?
Why are the CNN viewers so unhappy with CNN?
It started telling real news.
Not completely.
They still have a good pocket of bias over there that comes out pretty obviously.
But they made a concerted, and I think legitimate, move toward actual news, where they didn't just lie about conservatives.
And then the people were like, what?
What?
Yeah.
So it turns out you can't make money Telling people the truth, or attempting to tell them the truth.
You could argue whether they get it right.
But attempting to tell people a calm, objective truth is terrible for your ratings.
Do you know how I know that?
Does anybody know how I know that attempting to tell the truth, even if you don't do it right, but attempting to tell the truth, you know that's terrible for ratings, right?
It's certainly bad for mind.
Now, luckily I have, you know, a death wish.
You know, that's not literal.
I don't have a literal death wish.
And by the way, I'm not planning to commit suicide.
So let me put that out there.
I am not planning to commit suicide.
Feeling good.
Feeling great, actually.
I had nethered them off my blood pressure meds.
They were definitely screwing with my mind.
But I want you to know, I'm not planning to kill myself.
Because I do think there's a reasonably good chance I'll get murdered in the next two years.
I mean, reasonable chance meaning 5%.
Maybe 5%.
But that's, you know, more than you want to worry about.
You probably don't have a 5% chance of getting murdered.
But I have a 5% chance of getting murdered for political reasons.
Because I moved the needle.
So, anyway.
What was I talking about?
I completely lost the thread.
I don't know, was it interesting?
Was it anything good?
Oh, about the news, yeah.
So, CNN is losing viewers because they're attempting to tell them the truth.
I attempt to tell the truth on my live streams and tweeting, but of course everybody just says, well that's your truth, you big old stupid liar.
You gullible idiot.
We'll talk more about how dumb I am later.
All right, here's a story that, I swear to God, you really can't tell the difference between parody and reality.
If I had not told you in advance that this is real, the following story, would you have believed it?
If you didn't know it was real, would you have believed this if you'd just heard it in the wild?
I'm not even sure I believe it, but I saw it today.
That the book, 1984, Georgia Orwell's book, famous classic.
The estate has approved a request to have it rewritten from a woman's point of view.
Finally!
Yeah, finally!
Finally!
I'll tell you, I tried to read that thing.
You know, I tried to read 1984.
I was familiar with it, of course.
But I wanted to see if it held up.
And I tried to read that thing, and I was like, oh my God.
This book is entirely from a man's point of view.
I couldn't even finish it.
There were no LGBTQ themes.
The Holocaust wasn't even mentioned.
Not once.
Maybe it was.
Maybe it was, actually.
I don't remember.
But the biggest problem was it wasn't from a woman's point of view.
And if you could get that fixed, then that book might have some legs.
People might want to start talking about that.
Well, I swear to God I had something on my...
Why is it that...
Have you ever just tried to open an iPad And just leave it there so you can go back to it.
And it'll, like, just, like, change its page, and it'll turn off, and it'll come up, and it'll ask for software updates, and... Like, why can't it just sit there?
Just sit there and do what the f... Sorry.
Will be no cursing.
There will be no cursing.
But I'd like to call your attention to today's Dilbert comic, which I just tweeted.
And you may recognize this story.
It's Dogbert talking to Dilbert.
See if you recognize this story from the news.
Dogbert's reading his phone, and Dogbert says, the College of Psychologists of Ontario says they will pull my license unless I surrender to a re-education camp.
Dilber says, you don't live in Canada, and you don't have a license to practice.
And then Dilber says, they are oddly aggressive for Canadians.
And Dogbert takes a sip of his coffee and says, sounds like a mental disorder.
Do you recognize that story?
Yeah, the College of Psychologists of Ontario has asked Dr. Jordan Peterson to come in to be re-educated.
The best thing that ever happened to Canadian psychologist industry is Jordan Peterson.
He actually made their entire profession look worthwhile for a change.
He took this thing that didn't have the greatest reputation in the world, you know, the practice of psychology, and turned it into something useful for millions of people around the world.
So what have they got to do?
Well, you better re-educate that motherfucker, because, sorry, I just couldn't do it.
I just couldn't get through it without swearing.
But I think you will agree that one belonged.
That one belonged there.
So I had already previewed to Dr. Peterson that I was going to run this comic.
He asked for the original.
Do you think I said yes?
It's a trick question.
It's a trick question.
No, it's a trick question.
Come on, it's me.
You know it's always a trick question.
There's no original.
There's no such thing as originals.
They're all created digitally.
But I will send up a nice copy.
Just wanted him to know I'm in his corner, solidly, in his fight against the Ontario, or the College of Psychologists of Ontario.
And if you are not aware of this, I'm just guessing.
Just going to take a guess.
There's probably a better than 50% chance that the members of the College of Psychologists of Ontario have been sent a few copies of this topic this morning.
Probably.
I'll bet they got a few copies sent to them.
I'll bet when they opened their email they were, oh, not 400 copies of this damn thing being sent to me.
Why do people keep sending me this comic?
Why are they mocking us for this totally reasonable effort of ours to re-educate the only person who has made them look good in their entire history.
Anyway, we'll see if the power of Dilbert has any hold.
By the way, this will become the subject of a lawsuit.
I think Isn't Dr. Peterson taking him to court?
Some kind of lawsuit about this?
I don't know the details.
But I will tell you that the Dilbert comic has been used in lawsuits before.
In legal cases.
And it's used in the sense of what should be common knowledge.
If it appears in a Dilbert comic, that's evidence that the public should know about this.
That it's a commonly understood thing.
Otherwise it doesn't become a comic.
I wouldn't do a comic about something that isn't real.
Well, I guess I would, but you know the difference.
So, it could make a difference.
It could make the difference, because being in a Dilbert comic establishes that it's ridiculous.
You get that, right?
Like it wouldn't work as a joke, it wouldn't work unless it was ridiculous on its own.
You can't take something that makes sense and make a joke about it.
By the way, did you know that?
Did you know you can't make a joke about something that's just perfectly reasonable?
For example, my company decided to cut expenses because we were losing money.
What can I do with that?
Nothing.
There's no joke you can make about somebody who does the thing you're supposed to do.
So the fact that it's in a Dilbert comic and we can all laugh at it and recognize it as funny, and I didn't change it much, just that Dogbert had to be re-educated.
The fact that they would re-educate anybody is so ridiculous that it just stands on its own as, okay, that's just stupid.
All right, enough about that.
Do you think that there's a phone addiction that we have?
And that the reason we check our phones so much is that the phones are really, really good?
Is that why we check them?
Because they're so addictive and they're good?
That's what we all think, right?
And it feels that way.
When I use my phone, it feels addictive.
So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that's what's going on.
Let me throw out another possibility.
Have you ever been with somebody you really enjoyed being with?
And then you notice you hadn't looked at your phone in hours.
Has that ever happened to you?
If you're with people, or even just one person, and you're really happy with what you're doing, you don't even think about using your phone.
So here's the provocative new theory.
Phones are not awesome.
They're not addictive.
People got worse.
People started sucking so badly that spending time with them is just painful.
But my phone never disappoints me.
When was the last time you looked at your phone and it did not give you a hit?
It's like my best dealer ever.
I'm like, I need a hit of some chemicals here.
Scroll, scroll, scroll.
Good, OK.
Scroll, scroll, scroll.
All right, I'm happy now.
I've said this a lot, but I think that our changing preferences have made us all terrible to each other.
In the early days, nobody had much of an interest outside of what they were doing, you know, locally.
So, you know, at the end of the day, how are your crops?
Oh, my crops are good.
How are your crops?
I mean, we basically had common references and, you know, people enjoyed each other because that's what they had.
And now I think people are so picky about what they like and don't like.
You put any two together and there's so much they disagree on because there's so much they think about.
And there's so many different ways to look at everything that we end up being like two porcupines who can't hug.
Although I guess porcupines do reproduce.
You ever wonder how porcupines reproduce?
Let me turn it into a joke.
It's already a joke.
I'm stealing this joke.
How do... Yeah, alright, you've already heard the joke.
How do porcupines reproduce?
Very carefully.
Very carefully.
Alright.
Just putting that out there.
Were you aware that the biggest cause of depression and suicide among the youth is lack of sleep?
Did you know that?
I heard this as a data.
That if you look at lack of sleep, it tracks directly to depression and suicide.
Not too surprising, right?
So, lack of sleep is the number one cause of suicide and depression.
What causes lack of sleep in 2023?
Only the phone.
And, you know, screens.
Just screens.
So, I'm gonna go all the way here.
I think social media should be illegal for minors.
American social media and TikTok and everything else.
Now TikTok should be banned in America.
But the other ones, you know, they're American companies and I think they should stay for adults.
But I think that minors should not have access to social media after 9pm.
What do you say?
After 9pm, no access to social media.
But my first choice is to ban it completely for young people.
I don't think young people should have access to any social media.
It's not like we don't know that it's dangerous.
Let me ask you this.
Let's say Big Pharma came up with an idea.
And the idea was they were going to have you look at Look at screens every night and you can do it as long as you want.
You can stay up all night if you want.
And then they do a study.
This is Big Pharma, right?
Just a hypothetical.
And they do the randomized controlled trial and they find out that the people who use their screens at night lose sleep and end up being depressed and suicidal.
The people who do not use the screens have just normal lives and they're better.
So would the government approve that product from Big Pharma?
If social media had been tested in a randomized controlled trial before anybody had access to it, and of course you can't do it, would it be legal?
I don't think so.
No.
I think the health impact, especially on children, I think the health impact of social media would have made it banned if it had been a drug.
And the reason that we don't call social media a drug is because we're stupid bucket people.
Humans are stupid bucket people.
Everything has to be in a bucket.
What are you, conservative?
Are you conservative or a liberal?
Let me get my bucket.
Oh, you're in between?
No, you can't be in between.
Nobody's in between.
Get in your bucket.
So as soon as you say that drugs are a pill or an injection, Then you say, OK, that's drugs.
We'll treat drugs this way.
We've got all these rules for what a drug is.
And then somebody invents social media, which is clearly a drug.
I won't even listen to an argument on this point.
Social media is a drug that's just administered in a different way.
Instead of a needle or a pill, it just goes in through your eyes as images.
But it's absolutely a drug.
And the fact that we don't treat it the way we treat the things that we test and do randomized control trials has nothing to do with whether we should or whether it makes sense.
Has nothing to do with the logic, the reasoning, the priorities, nothing to do with that.
Has only to do with the fact that we reflexively put things in buckets and our medical bucket just doesn't have screens in it.
And that's it.
We put screens in the entertainment bucket when it should have been in the medical bucket.
There's not one person arguing the point.
There's not a single person here who will argue that point.
It's a digital narcotic.
Right?
You tell me.
If we had considered social media a drug, it would not pass government approval.
It wouldn't even come close.
Not even close.
I've heard Bill Maher say the other day that he can't watch a movie anymore because they're too long and boring compared to the quick hit of social media.
I don't know if he was talking about other people or about himself, but he made the point.
Now, who was the first person you heard say that?
I think I'm the first person you've ever heard say that, that movies are dead.
You'll never be able to watch a movie again unless you're with somebody and it's more about being with the person.
Yeah.
So I was ahead of the curve on that, I guess.
So US News, the Periodical, the publication, U.S.
News.
Every year they do a ranking of colleges and schools.
I guess they do graduate schools and medical schools and stuff like that.
And they're having trouble ranking medical schools because some of the medical schools are resisting being ranked on their usual standards.
And they say that they won't even contribute information to the rankings unless Their diversity and equity successes are included in their ranking.
What do you think of that?
Would you like colleges to be ranked in part the quality of the school, not just the fairness, but the quality of the education.
That's what's being ranked.
Not fairness, but the quality of the education.
And they're saying that the quality of the education is better When you've got more diversity and equity and inclusion.
What do you think of that?
Do you think you can get a better education if there's more diversity?
You're all racist.
You totally get a better education if there's more diversity.
You're all frickin' racist.
And I mean that literally.
I'm sorry.
I just have to say that to your screen faces.
No, if the only variable that's different, if the only variable that's different is diversity, it's all positive.
Do you disagree?
Because the diversity does give you more access to more points of view.
So if everybody's equally qualified, that's a benefit.
Really, you don't think that's a benefit?
If everybody's the same qualifications, you don't think diversity gives you more points of view, more access, more windows to look through, more understanding, better bedside manner, perhaps, because you understand people better?
No, it's unambiguously good.
All right, well, you could argue that point.
But here's my point.
If the way they get there is sacrificing merit, then does anybody think that's good?
If you were to deprioritize merit to get more equity and more diversity, is that still good?
Well, you know, there's a crossover point.
So you're getting something from diversity, and I'll argue that to the death.
Simply because I've been in those environments.
Whenever I'm in an environment where there's more diversity, I'm absolutely picking up more understanding.
There's just no way to argue that.
You can't argue that.
But if you give up merit, here's what I think we need to do.
I would like to know if my doctor got one of those equity degrees or one of those merit degrees.
Don't you think we should make a difference?
Would you like to know?
Oh, doctor, I see you have a degree.
Did you get one of the equity types?
Or one of the merit types?
Now, this will never happen, of course.
But there are so many things that could be solved by truth in labeling, right?
If the only thing I'm asking for is truth in labeling, why would that be a problem?
Let the free market decide.
If they think that somebody who went to a sort of equity priority school Got more out of the equity and the diversity, because there is a lot to get there.
Then they gave up on maybe a little bit, you know, in the rankings of the academics.
Yeah, maybe it's not that big a deal.
You know, maybe it's a small tweak to the merit to get a lot more diversity.
You can make that argument.
But I would certainly like, as a consumer, to know the difference.
I want to know, was equity and diversity a big deal at the school you went to?
And did that have anything to do with the fact that you made it through?
Or was it merit only?
So today I have a doctor who is a woman, and she's brown of some type.
I've never asked.
So she's a person of color, some kind of brown whatever, and she's a woman.
I have never once thought that she was there for any reason other than merit.
Never even occurred to me.
Never once in my mind did I say, ooh, I wonder if she only got through medical school because of her... Never once.
Never thought.
And she's a great doctor.
I like her a lot.
But what happens in five years if the doctor's coming out or coming out of, you know, equity priority college?
I'd kind of want to know.
I mean, I might not make a different decision.
I might make the same decision.
I'd kind of like to know.
A little truth in labeling would be nice.
Speaking of Dr. Jordan Peterson, he is creating an alternative World Economic Forum.
I guess it would be pro-energy that's cheap, so that poor people can have access to the energy, and pro-families and monogamy.
Now, here's my big problem with Dr. Peterson's philosophies of life.
He's big on family and monogamy.
I absolutely agree with him that that is the best system for a stable world.
But only maybe for 25% of people, and that's the problem.
In the old days, maybe it was better for a higher percentage.
I really don't think more than 25% of the public is going to make a marriage work.
For the rest, it's probably a bad idea.
And I don't know what to do about that.
It could be that his approach is the best, which is if you don't push as hard as possible and the thing you know works, you're in trouble.
Yeah, I get that point.
That makes sense.
And I do agree.
That if you get the right two people and you put them in a monogamous marriage, it is the best.
I think that that's just sort of obviously true.
You know, you can see it in a lot of ways.
But let me ask you this question.
I'm going to put on my skeptic hat for a moment.
Do we all agree that single moms produce children who have the most criminal records?
Would you agree?
That correlation seems to be really clean.
You don't agree?
I'm not saying it's causation, I'm saying the correlation.
Would it be easier if I just say correlation?
Causation is what I'm going to question next.
Alright, so here's my question.
Is it also true of college educated single moms?
In other words, if you looked at only the single moms who went to Ivy League colleges, And have high incomes.
They have high incomes.
Are their children also more likely to be criminals?
Compared to the average.
You think yes?
I would make a really, really large bet that they have a low criminal record.
I would make a really, really big bet on that.
You really think it's going to be the same?
So, to me, that looks like brainwashing.
But I'll allow that you could be right, since I don't have the data.
I will allow that you could be right.
On the surface, it looks like brainwashing.
Because if you think that in all situations, simply having one parent is worse than all situations with two, that's not really rational thinking.
But if you believe there's a strong correlation when you look at the whole thing, probably yes.
I think it's been studied a lot.
But here's the thing.
There is a lot more going on with those single mothers than just the fact that they're single mothers.
Whatever it is that made a man not want to be with them, do I need to finish the sentence?
Right.
Now, when I talk about the Ivy League woman who chooses to be a single mother, That's a choice.
That's somebody who says, oh, I can handle this.
I think I'll choose to be a single mother.
Do you think that's the same as somebody who couldn't get a man to live with her even if she tried?
There's no way those are the same.
There's no way.
And what about the man who left?
If that woman had stayed with the man who left, they would be happy?
And the child would do well?
Because there's got to be something about the man who leaves and doesn't take responsibility that suggests that if he had stayed it would have been pretty bad.
Because he doesn't take responsibility.
And obviously was not in love with the woman.
So I think our thinking about single parenting is completely mixed up with too many other variables.
And if the only thing you're seeing is the single part, you're missing the biggest part of the picture.
I think.
So I think we're completely misled about what's going on there.
I think there's a certain type of person who's more likely to be a single mom, and that that person who's more likely to be a single mom is unlikely to have an Ivy League degree.
Right?
They are likely, To have a bunch of other characteristics in common with other single women.
And I think it's those other characteristics that are probably driving things.
Now, that said, the best way to raise a kid, I'm sure, is a mother and a father.
I'm not sure the gender thing is so important, but a two-parent situation, because two is better than one.
Having two people take care of you that are adults and love you?
Well, it's got to be better than one, if they're both functional.
But I think we need to look at that a little bit deeper.
It's too simplistic.
Married versus unmarried.
Rasmussen, as a poll, says 48% of the, these are usually likely voters they poll, 48% say Biden's handling of classified documents is a, quote, major scandal.
I'll just give you a little quiz.
Now, for those who are on YouTube, if you're new to me, I've developed the smartest live stream audience in the world.
And I'm going to prove it again.
Not only do they know based on what's happening, and they're smart about that, they can actually see into the future and see data that hasn't even been presented to them.
So I'm going to ask this question and watch how cleverly they get the right answer.
They've never seen this information before.
They've never seen this before.
Watch this.
What percentage do you think, after the Rasmussen polled them, what percentage of American voters, likely voters, do you think, say that Biden's classified document situation is no scandal at all?
No scandal at all.
You did it again.
Amazing.
It's 24.
It's 24, but you know, those of you who guessed 25, that was really good.
You know, you just keep impressing me.
Keep impressing me.
I don't know how you do it.
But 60% of voters believe it's likely the information from the classified documents was used by Hunter Biden in his foreign business deals.
How in the world can Joe Biden win the presidency?
How in the world?
60% believe that he and his son, and I'm going to add that they must think they're working as a team, 60% of voters think that they're selling classified information, or it's likely that they're selling classified information to foreign entities.
Isn't it over?
How does Trump not become president?
You know, you're seeing a lot of Trump criticism.
A lot of it comes from me, and I think it's deserved, actually.
But he still has to run against someone, and I think it's going to be Biden.
It looks like it's going to be Biden.
How does Trump lose?
The only way this goes is a rigged election.
Am I wrong?
I don't see anything else that can happen except a massively rigged election.
Because there's no way that the powers that be are going to let Trump win again.
I mean, without at least trying really hard to influence it.
Now, no matter what you say about past elections, I'll just let past elections go by as a separate topic.
No matter what's happened in the past, they're going to have to rig it this time.
They have to.
And you know what?
If the Republicans lose a rigged election, you know what I say?
Totally deserve it.
And I will welcome our new Democrat president.
And I'll congratulate him on the win.
Because if the Republicans can't figure out how to cheat better or stop the cheating, they're not very capable.
They're not very capable.
And they don't deserve to win.
And I see no action from the Republicans to increase the transparency of the elections.
So that you know if it was cheating.
At this point, the Republicans deserve to lose.
They're doing everything in their power to lose.
The Republicans, you know, basically it doesn't even look like they're trying, honestly.
So there's a video going around that there was a presentation at the World Economic Forum and everything sounds scarier when it's at the World Economic Forum.
And this was extra scary.
So there is now technology where you could put on some kind of a wearable device or a earbud that would monitor your brainwaves and the thinking is that employers will be able to know if you're thinking about work.
If you're actually working, and thinking about work, or if your mind has wandered to your personal thoughts.
And they'll be able to, like, play back your brainwaves after the fact, and say, alright, well, at about 3 o'clock, at 3 o'clock, you were mostly just daydreaming about sex stuff, I guess.
Now, add to that that your employer can check your actual actions online, they can check your keystrokes, and they might even know where you are physically.
They might track your location.
So your employer will know what you're thinking and what you're doing every minute of the day.
Roughly speaking, they'll know.
So the thinking is that we'll become this mass dystopia with people just hooked into the matrix having to work all the time and all their happiness and quality of life will be destroyed and it's all the World Economic Forum's problem because they let somebody give a presentation in which the person who presented it said, don't assume it'll be all bad.
It's pretty hard to hear this and then imagine it could be good in any way.
But, let me give you some context.
When I got out of college, I was looking for a job at a big bank.
I went to work at what was Crocker National Bank at the time, before Wells Fargo bought them.
And it was when ATMs were just being rolled out.
So ATMs were sort of a new thing, not every bank had one yet, but Crocker was ahead of the curve.
Do you know what the biggest Debate was about ATMs.
You know what the biggest controversy was?
This technology will be out of control.
It's going to steal my money.
And then when I complain, nobody will listen to me because it's me against the computer.
Right?
And all the old people said, you're going to lose your humanity because you don't get to talk to the teller.
You won't be able to complain, blah, blah.
Now, did any of those things happen?
A little bit, but not really.
Not really.
Yeah, I mean they happened, but not to the point where it made any difference to the growth of ATMs, right?
And by the way, the rule in banks at the time was if you complained about the ATM stealing your money, if they didn't see it on video, like if they didn't have enough information, they gave you your money.
If they couldn't prove it one way or the other, they actually just gave you your money.
Because usually it was like $100, right?
Somebody would say, hey, the ATM took my $100.
And if they couldn't tell, they just gave you the $100.
Because there was nothing else they could do.
Otherwise, they'd have to just get rid of ATMs.
Now, eventually, the ATM, you know, keeps track of what it gives, but it also has a video.
And the video would, you know, pretty much prove if it stole something from you.
So, whenever you see a new technology that looks like it's going to end all our quality of life, we've been through this cycle a lot.
Now, I will agree that this looks different.
AI doesn't look like anything else.
So anything that was in the past that looked like a pattern probably will be violated by AI.
But it's good to know that we've been here before.
We're always worrying about the next technology will be the one that ends us all.
And I have now an out-of-pocket prediction about AI.
You know how AI was going to take all of our physical jobs first?
Because you could build robots.
So the robots will take the dangerous physical jobs.
And then later, the creative jobs, those might stay intact, because it would take a long time for AI to get there.
It's going to be the opposite.
I think AI will take all the smart jobs.
Coding, psychology, your therapist will be AI.
Art.
You know, all art, humor, entertainment is all going to be AI.
Do you know what people will do?
Manual labor.
I think humans will be moved entirely to manual labor.
Do you know why?
Because it'll be cheaper than robots for a long time.
That's all.
They'll just be cheaper than robots.
I think the economics will be that people will be cheap and robots will be expensive.
So you use your expensive robots to be lawyers and doctors.
And by the way, AI has already passed the bar.
And AI has passed, what is the medical licensing?
It's already done that.
It's already more educated than you are.
Because it's got two degrees, even if you have one.
So yeah, humans are going to have to do stuff like crawl under floors to get to plumbing.
Humans are going to be figuring out, oh wait, just because the wires don't touch, there's also maybe rats or there's a human element.
Yeah, people will just be doing manual labor.
Now here's the interesting part.
Do you know what makes humans happy?
Doing manual labor.
It turns out it makes us very happy.
Yeah.
As long as we're not working ourselves to death, right?
You don't want to be in a slave camp.
You don't want to be in the gulag.
But if you're just keeping busy, you know, you're just moving, you're doing a thing, you complete a task, you get a dopamine for completing a task, you're moving, you're completing tasks.
It's actually really good for us.
So we probably will become The manual laborers and the AI will do all the thinking for us.
That's my prediction.
So, you know what's really puzzling, even at this late stage, is we still don't know why Sweden did so well in the pandemic.
It's still a mystery.
Now, there are a few things we do know about Sweden.
I found out and confirmed this this morning.
That I saw a list of the fattest countries and the thinnest countries.
America is one of the fattest countries in the world.
Top three, I think.
And Sweden is one of the thinnest.
One of the thinnest.
So I can't understand the whole pandemic situation.
Oh, and then also...
I found out today that Sweden is one of the youngest countries.
It's one of the youngest.
America is one of the oldest.
I didn't realize that.
So America is old and fat, and it's one of the oldest and one of the fattest countries.
And Sweden is unusually young and unusually thin.
But you know, the thing is, I can't figure out How they did so well during the pandemic.
That's still sort of a mystery.
Oh, another thing I found out about Sweden is that because of where they're located on the planet, they routinely supplement with vitamin D. I think they take like fish oil or something.
It's nasty.
But they have good vitamin D. They're thin and they're younger than other countries that did poorly.
But if I had to guess why they did well, probably ivermectin.
Probably ivermectin, I think.
Could have been hydroxychloroquine.
Or it could be because they didn't use masks as much.
Could be that.
But I don't know.
I don't understand how just because they're thinner and younger and they have good vitamin D, I don't see how they do well in the pandemic.
Unless it was ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
Part of the story.
There are two new studies About the vaccinations and about COVID, and both of them are total BS.
You want to hear this BS?
I'll tell you, I think we can agree that all the data about the pandemic is sketchy.
It doesn't matter where it comes from, it's all sketchy.
But this is the craziest thing you've heard yet.
Are you ready for this?
Now, of course, these are preprints, and who knows if they could be a repeat or anything.
There are two recent studies, one out of Denmark, one out of somewhere else, that said that if you're over 50, you actually did better If you got the vaccination than if you didn't.
Now, here's how we analyze that.
We'll start with what we know for sure, okay?
And then you, this is how you reason.
You start with what you know and then you reason toward the things that you're trying to figure out.
What we know is that I got everything wrong about my decisions about the pandemic.
So you start with that as your fact.
And then we can reason backwards to conclude that both of these studies are BS.
Because if I know I got the wrong answer, it can't be true that these studies are true.
Because that would sort of suggest I made a good decision.
And since we know that's not the case, we start with what we know.
Take the L. I take the L. L. Taking the L.
Clotting and coping.
So we know that's true.
So then we can reason backwards that the studies are BS.
So I reject them completely for the BS that they are.
By the way, how many of you understand that I'm accepting that I live in a simulation and that your reality can actually be real, as real as anything, because we're a simulation.
And mine can be real and opposite.
And there's no conflict.
There's no conflict if I live in a world in which everything's different than everything for you.
As long as it doesn't conflict.
As long as we can both reproduce, those two worlds can live as completely true.
As true as anything else.
No less true, no more true.
Have you yet watched Brett and Heather?
Well, here's the story.
Here's something I learned that other people can do that I can't.
Suppose, and let's take as our starting points, again, we'll use the same technique.
Since we know that Heather and Brett were correct about the pandemic, so we'll start with the fact that they're correct, then how did you know?
How did you know they were correct?
Because I'm going to accept as a fact that they were correct, because they have skills.
Now they have skills that I don't have, so I can't do what they do, right?
I could not look at data and science at the level that they could look at, and I wouldn't understand it.
But apparently they can.
But my question is, how did you know that they could, and all the people who don't have podcasts could not?
Like what was it that said to you, The people who are good at this, but also have a podcast, have one point of view, and the people who are, I thought were good at it, but for whatever reason don't have a podcast, are all getting the wrong answers.
So, was it the fact that they have a podcast that made you think that they're so good you could just take their point of view?
Because I looked at them and I thought to myself, huh, I'm not sure the podcast part is actually telling me as much as it should.
In fact, when I analyzed the Big Pharma, I thought, hey, they're making money on these drugs.
Are they completely unbiased?
And I said, no.
If they're making money on a particular point of view, you can't trust the point of view.
Am I right?
And then I unwisely thought, well, hey, a lot of these people who have, let's say, different views, have podcasts and books, and it appears that they're monetizing their point of view, much like the people they're criticizing.
Now, you, most of you, could look at that situation and say, okay, the podcast part doesn't count, they're just really good at looking at stuff, and you can tell they're good at looking at stuff, but how'd you do that?
Because that's the part I can't do.
To me, I just saw people had different opinions and I couldn't I couldn't adjudicate any of them, because I don't have the skills they had.
If I had the skills they had, I wouldn't need to look at their opinion.
Right?
If I could judge whether Brett and Heather were correct, if I could judge that, it would mean I had their skills.
Wouldn't it?
I would have to have at least equal or better skills to judge whether they did it.
Because remember, your dog can't judge How you do at work.
Because your dog doesn't understand your work, so it can't judge it.
Right?
So I'm like the dog.
I'm like a dog watching Brett and Heather go to work.
And the only thing I say is, Roof!
Roof!
I'm hungry.
I need to go out.
That's all I can add to the conversation, because I don't have their skills.
But you do.
Many of you have some kind of heuristic or rule of thumb that you're holding from me because nobody will explain it to me and I feel like you're doing it intentionally.
You know something I don't know and you're all not telling me.
You do.
How do you know that they get the right answer?
Like, how could you judge that?
I'm just like the dog barking at a computer.
I'm like barking at the television.
Roof!
Roof!
How do they put those pictures on the television?
Roof!
That's all I have.
But I'm completely aware that I'm just the dog barking at the television.
How did you know that they were right and that so many other people were wrong?
Now, I heard you say it's because of money, but even that doesn't work for me because they're all making money in their different ways.
How'd you do it?
No, seriously, how'd you do it?
Evolutionary biology?
That's not an answer.
All right, here's the other thing that I can't do.
And I've told you this before.
When I watched the documentary about Michael Jackson and the allegations against him and children, it was 100% convincing.
100% convincing.
Boy, was it convincing.
So you believe Brett and Heather because they admitted when they were wrong and that increased their credibility.
Okay, now we're talking.
Let's work with that.
So would you say that people who get things wrong and then correct it are more credible than people who are not telling you they got anything wrong?
Is that true?
And do you think scientists don't correct themselves when the data changes?
Or they find out there's something wrong?
Do the scientists who actually work in the field of science, do they get new data, and then they just say, that data doesn't agree with my opinion, I'll throw it out?
Is that how other scientists work?
Or is it possible that you saw Brett and Heather changing their minds only because you were watching them, and that's how all scientists act?
That the reason they're scientists is because they're going to respect the data and the process, and that when something changes, they change with it.
Now, I thought that regular scientists were also doing that behind closed doors, and I just didn't see it.
Whereas if you have a podcast, you do it in public, and then people see it, and they say, well, that's credible, because I see them doing the most normal thing that any scientist does, but they're doing it in public, Where every other scientist in the world who does exactly the same thing, change their mind when the data changes, they do it behind closed doors so that you can't really trust them.
So being on the podcast is what gives them credibility.
Now that I hadn't thought of.
So just doing it in public makes you trust them because you can see them change their mind.
But the people who are also scientists who do that every single day because that's exactly what they signed up to do, change their minds.
They signed up to change their minds.
To find out new things and then adopt those views.
Do you think they're not doing that behind closed doors?
That really they just keep their same opinions even when the data changes?
They just call themselves scientists but they're really just actors?
Maybe?
Crisis actors?
Alright.
So that's one way.
So one way is that they change their minds in public.
What are some other ways you know they're right?
And the other people followed the money.
So the fact that Brett and Heather had one sort of business model, do you think that if Brett and Heather had decided that new information showed that the vaccination was the best thing that ever happened to the world, do you think that they would adopt that view?
Which would be reputationally and financially devastating to them.
So you trust them to the point where they would not follow the money.
They would be the only ones.
So you believe that you found the only two humans who don't follow the money.
You do?
Okay.
Well, that is a very good vote for those two.
See, I don't have that skill.
I'm still like the dog barking at the TV.
Follow the money.
Row, row, row.
It's just different money following a different path.
To me, it's everybody following the money.
Now, if you thought that Brett and Heather are especially immune from following the money, what about me?
Because you've seen me take the view that makes me the least money.
And you know it, right?
You know it.
You know it.
You watch it every day.
You see me pissing off my audience every day, intentionally.
Do you think I do it to make money?
I don't know any business model where that works.
I'm basically being CNN right now.
I'm being CNN, I'm trying to be balanced, and it's just killing me.
Financially.
It's horrible.
But that's what integrity looks like.
In case you've never seen it.
In case you've never seen it, that's what it looks like.
Somebody says it's my ego.
Yeah, my ego is the reason that I'm saying things that make people hate me.
Because of my ego.
How do you even connect all those dots?
That's a lot of dots to connect.
Dignity.
Alright.
Well, that's enough on that.
The funniest people are the people who tell me that they're going to stop listening to me until I stop talking about the interpretation of data, basically.
And I think, do you really think I'm not going to block you for that?
I block everybody who says, I liked it when you did this, but you did too much of this pandemic stuff.
I just block all of them.
So they won't have to deal with it again.
Which I think is a fair, that's a fair deal.
Because the thing is that if I only do what the complainers tell me to do, this would be the shittiest experience you ever had.
Like, oh, these three people told me I must do these topics, but never do these other topics.
That's not the show you want to see.
Do a spaces debate?
I've got a prediction.
Nobody's going to want to debate me on this.
Nobody's going to want to debate me on this.
Yeah.
It's never going to happen.
By the way, what do you think would happen if Brett and I, Brett Weinstein, what would you think if we were to compare notes and if we were to say, all right, what do you think is true and what do I think is true?
How different would it be?
How different is my current opinion from Brett Weinstein's current opinion about everything on the pandemic?
You think it'd be 90% different?
I think it would be the same.
It would be the same.
You don't think it would be the same?
There wouldn't be one thing we disagree on.
But you don't realize that, do you?
What would happen if I debated Alex Berenson?
What percentage would we disagree on?
Here's what I think.
I think it would go like this.
I've got this information that says these vaccinations are dangerous.
And I would say, well, I don't believe any pandemic data.
Do you?
And then he would say, well, yeah, I believe this data.
And I would say, you live in a world in 2023 where anybody's data is credible on the pandemic.
And in about five minutes, he would agree with me that you can't really trust any of the data.
Right?
You might start that way.
I mean, this was speculation and mind reading, so it's not really fair.
But I'm almost positive that if I talk to any of the people that you think are opposite of my opinion, That I have the same opinion.
Does that blow your mind?
Does anybody's mind blow?
I don't think we'd have any difference.
Everything that you imagined about my different opinion is completely a hallucination.
And I've always known that.
You know I've always known that, right?
That we didn't disagree.
The people who think they disagree with me are completely based on rumors or bad information or whatever.
I mean, yeah, I'm in 14 to 16 movies at the same time.
But it says, I don't believe you.
Well, let's test it, alright?
Let's test it.
Those of you who think that I should have Brett correct me.
Tell me one statement you believe he thinks is true that I think is not true.
Go.
Tell me one statement, just a clean statement, something that Brett Weinstein believes is true that I don't believe is true.
Go.
Yeah, there's nothing.
There's nothing.
Ivermectin?
You think we have a different opinion on Ivermectin?
I don't know what that would be.
Here's what I think his opinion is and you tell me if I'm wrong.
The ivermectin story is hard to sort out because the studies may not have focused exactly in the right place.
Some seem to indicate in a meta-analysis that it's helpful.
So far agree?
So far agree that the studies that show it doesn't work are sketchy.
The studies that show it does work are based on a meta-analysis.
And then I would say this to Brett, but you know a meta-analysis introduces subjectivity.
Because the person who does it gets to decide what's in and out of the study.
And also, if one big study is bigger than the others, it's really not a meta-analysis, it's one study.
Because it biases it by so much.
If I said that to Brett, would he say, no, I disagree with you.
A meta-analysis in which one study is so big that it biases the whole meta-analysis is still really good.
He wouldn't say that.
Do you know why he wouldn't say that?
Because he's smart.
Nobody would say that was smart.
And then, do you think I would disagree with him when he said that the studies that say ivermectin doesn't work are sketchy?
Do you think I would disagree?
No, I think all the data is sketchy, with no exceptions.
So we would agree that all the ivermectin data is imperfect.
Then we would move to point two.
If it's imperfect, Should you have the right to try it, knowing that the risks are low?
What would I say?
What would I say to that?
Would I disagree?
I'd say, yes, of course.
Low risk, potential upside, plenty of anecdotal reports, and then Brett would agree with me that anecdotal reports are not confirmation, and that the meta-analysis is not confirmation, And the RCTs that say it doesn't work are not super reliable.
So it just comes down to, well, I don't know if it works and I don't know if it does or doesn't, but it should be legal for me to try it.
So where would we disagree?
Where would we disagree?
See, I have a theory that above a certain level of intelligence everybody agrees.
It just looks like we don't.
I don't think there's ever been a disagreement.
Is it blowing your mind?
Try something else.
That was the best you had.
So the best you had was something where we clearly would agree.
Try something else.
Something else you think that Brett believes... Oh, Brett might say the adverse events justify... Alright, let's talk about that.
Do you think that Brett believes that the vaccinations are a bad idea for younger people?
Yes or no?
Would Brett say that vaccinations are a bad idea for younger people?
I think he'd say yes.
What do you think I'd say?
Based on current information, what would I say?
I'd agree.
I would agree.
What did I say during the pandemic, before we had, you know, a little bit better information?
What did I say?
Do you remember me saying, yeah, let's vaccinate those kids?
Did you ever hear me say that?
Have I ever suggested children should be vaccinated?
Nope.
Nope.
No.
So where would we disagree?
Now, here's the second question.
People over 50, or let's say over 65, wherever we want to do it, would Brett say that for people over, let's say 65, would he say that people over 65 did not receive a benefit from the shot?
What would he say?
I think he would say, I don't know, I think he would say the data shows that they had a higher survivability, but what we don't know is any long-term consequences.
Yes or no?
Do you think he would say that?
The data shows, the data's sketchy, but the data does show that older people got a benefit on average, but that there might be long-term consequences that could be catastrophic.
Would I disagree with that?
Would I disagree with that?
I think that's the opinion, but I don't really know.
No, I would agree with that.
I have agreed with that as clearly as possible.
So where would we disagree?
Is your mind blown yet?
Does it blow your mind that there's no disagreement between me and my biggest critic?
He's not my biggest critic, but you know, just for the purpose of this conversation.
Is anybody's mind blown right now?
At all?
Somebody says, do you believe that data?
No matter how many times...
Can I get permission to swear?
Permission to swear.
All right.
Too many no's.
Too many no's.
I'm not going to do it.
I'll do this without swearing.
Let me answer all of your questions.
There's a new study out, Scott.
Do you believe it?
No.
There's a new study out that says the opposite of the study.
Do you believe it?
No.
There's a new study that says you were right about everything, Scott.
Do you believe it?
What do you think I'd say?
No.
There's a study that disagrees with everything you said, Scott.
Do you believe it?
What do you think my answer is?
No.
Try to pick up the pattern.
It's all no.
It's all no.
Top to bottom.
No exceptions.
If it has anything to do with the pandemic, it's all no.
No.
So you don't ever have to ask me again.
If I tell you there's a new study that says wearing masks made your penis grow, do you have to ask me if I believe it?
No.
No.
If there's a new study that says the vaccinations actually made you smarter, do you have to ask me if I believe it?
No.
No, you can skip that step.
You can skip that step every time.
I'm not going to change my mind on this.
I'm just not.
The information is not credible at all.
And basically this is the same approach I've taken on climate change.
I think it's hilarious that the world was convinced we can measure the temperature of the world.
I mean, I don't even need to say anything about that.
It's hilarious that anybody ever believed that.
And that we're measuring it every year, and we can tell it's moving a little bit, and... That's the most absurd thing anybody ever believed.
Now, if I don't even believe that, and that's basically, that's accepted as, you know, pretty basic science, that we, okay, we can't measure everything, but we, you know, as long as we're consistent with the ones that we are measuring, Yeah, it's not good enough.
Not good enough.
Has healthcare declined since Obamacare?
Well, healthcare has declined.
I don't know if it's because of Obamacare.
By the way, I've heard some of the most horrific healthcare stories recently.
It's crazy.
Yeah.
I mean, I can't tell you the stories I've heard, but there's one I heard recently.
I wish I could tell you.
But it was a failure of a healthcare process at a level which I didn't even think was possible.
I mean, it was incredibly failure, failure.
Like, oh my frickin' God, failure.
Yeah, and it happens to be my healthcare provider that did it.
So it turns out that there's something called a patient advocate.
Have you ever heard of that?
At least at Kaiser.
There's a patient advocate.
And apparently you can make things go from nothing happening to something happening by asking to talk to that person.
Because things are so bad that you can't even work it out with the people you're working with.
