Episode 2007 Scott Adams: Trump, Stormy Daniels and Gobblers Knob Are In The News & It's Coincidence
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Watch the Twitter Spaces I did this morning
Twitter API to begin paid subscription
Trump's unique ability to negotiate peace
AI will be the source of massive frauds
Gobbler's Knob, Punxsutawney Phil
Have I taken the prank far enough yet?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams.
Never has there been a finer experience.
How would you all like to join me singing Kumbaya, sort of conceptually, and participate in the simultaneous sip?
Yes, yes, I think you would.
And all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a styrene, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine here of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip, and it happens now.
I don't know if you know, but the official mug has the entire simultaneous sip as well as my lip stains on it.
Well, today might be a shorter version of the live stream because I want to recommend you listen to the Spaces audio that I did this morning.
You can find it on Twitter.
I retweeted it.
So just look at my Twitter feed and you'll see it near the top.
And I asked people to tell me what I got wrong on the vaccination stuff, the pandemic, and to inform me.
And I dare say it's the best spaces of all time.
Oh, there are.
Oh, there was anger.
There were words.
Words were used.
There was enlightenment.
There was knowledge.
There was everything.
So actually, I do recommend it.
I think it would fascinate you to hear the drama on that thing.
Move on.
Goodbye.
You are hidden.
All right.
Apparently the Twitter API is going to have a charge now.
It used to be free.
If you don't know what an API is, it's a set of, I think we are private now, on locals.
An API is a set of instructions that third parties can use to access data on Twitter.
Now one of the problems is I guess bots were using it.
So one way to stop the bots is to charge for that because they wouldn't want to pay the price.
But there's a whole bunch of apps, third party apps, that require that API.
So he just put a whole bunch of other apps on the business.
But I think it might be a good move.
I don't know.
It's bad for some apps.
So it's bad for the functionality.
But it might improve the experience.
If it gets rid of some bots.
I don't know.
I would say I'm open-minded on it.
It obviously wasn't a thoughtless decision.
Obviously they thought about it.
I've got a feeling they made the right decision.
Or at least a rational decision.
We'll see if it turns out right.
Well, Trump is in the news calling for peace talks with Ukraine and Russia.
And slamming Biden for escalating toward World War III.
From a purely persuasion perspective, is that a good play?
Is Trump accurately finding the free money on the table and picking it up, or is it a mistake?
It feels like a clean, just a win, doesn't it?
Because everybody wants it to end, they just don't know how to do it.
So promising you can do something that the other people can't figure out how to do, if you can make an argument for it, that you do have the ability to do what the others can't do and we all would like to see done, it's actually a pretty strong argument.
Because he does seem to be the right personality at the right time, that if anybody could get Putin to make a deal, I feel like it would be him.
And partly for the You know, all the reasons that people have criticized him for being too friendly with Putin.
Now, I don't think he was ever too friendly.
I think that when he was in public, he said respectful things about Putin, so that he would be able to speak with him should he ever need to, in a, you know, pure kind of way.
And he preserved that.
So now he's the only person who can talk to Putin, and Putin will respect him.
Probably.
Probably the only one.
So, it's actually a pretty strong play to say that he can offer that when it doesn't look like anybody else could.
So, I like it.
From a persuasion perspective, I like it.
Alright, let's talk about Republican advantages.
Alright, Rasmussen has a new poll.
And the Republicans have two more policy issues that they have an advantage on.
It's not an overwhelming advantage, but it's a solid advantage.
So Republicans get more trust from voters on two crucial policy issues.
Now it's only 47% of the public, the voting public, trusts Republicans more to handle taxes.
So on the question of taxes, There are more people who trust Republicans.
It's still less than half, but more of them trust Republicans.
And, let's see, what else on education?
So they also trust Republicans more on education.
Now again, it's only 47% to 42%.
But it's still, that's still a solid, solid advantage.
So now the Republicans have the advantage in taxes, education, energy, immigration, spending.
Yeah, immigration would be border.
So what is it that the Democrats still have an advantage in?
Anything?
What?
Wokeness?
So, you know, they have an advantage in, let's say, abortion.
But now that's a state issue.
If it's a state issue, it shouldn't have too much impact on the presidential election.
Yeah.
Racism?
Is that an advantage?
They complain more on racism?
I don't know.
There's not many advantages left.
It's going to be harder and harder to explain a Democrat victory When the policies are all favoring the other side.
All right.
There's not much news today.
But.
Oh.
All right.
So scientists use AI to help them forecast the future of climate change.
Do I have to say anything else about that?
Scientists use AI to help them forecast climate change.
And guess what?
AI thinks that the forecast is even more dire than you thought.
AI that was trained by the scientists, surprisingly.
Surprisingly.
I know, you didn't see it coming.
Shock.
Shock.
So apparently AI is already being used for fraud.
Like, actually, literally.
Because there's no way to call this anything else.
Right?
The models themselves were already bullshit.
Training the AI to improve the models?
That's bullshit on top of bullshit.
That's some, like, bullshit we've not seen.
That's bullshit squared.
That's bullshit times bullshit times bullshit.
Like, you can't get more bullshit than that.
But how much of the average public is gonna say, ooh, I was a little uncertain before, but now that you've trained the AI, you trained it, I'm glad you trained the AI to help you, and now we've got some good AI knowledge here.
This might be the most absurd story you'll ever see.
Yep.
I'm going to use AI to fix those projection models that are mostly guesses.
Now, I suppose if AI is right, we're all dead.
But if AI is that smart, it'll figure out how to solve it.
Isn't it interesting that AI can predict the future in 20 years, but it can't figure out how to fix it?
Hmm.
Puzzling.
It turns out that the AI can be trained to give you the answers that you want to hear, But it can't be trained to fix anything.
Hmm.
Is it already clear to you that AI will be a major source of fraud?
Because people think it's real.
As long as people think it's real, you can fill it with anything you want.
Say, hey, it's not me.
Do you know what happens if you go to chat GPT?
Which by the way, some new news, they're gonna have a $20 a month subscription site to their AI.
I don't feel like I could not buy that.
Do you have that same feeling?
Like if you didn't have access to that AI, I would feel like it would, maybe not yet, but like really soon that would be a big, big problem.
I have a feeling this will be the most valuable company in the world.
The chat GPT entity.
Because I don't know how not to pay that.
Do you?
Like I have to pay that $20.
Because AI is really everything about the future.
Like everything will change because of AI.
Your ability to use AI is very much like Learning to use a computer at the dawn of the computer age.
Now, I happen to be just the right age where I was one of the first people, I was actually one of the first people to even have a personal computer at the big bank where I worked.
Like, it was the first one in the whole company.
Nobody had a personal computer except my little group of five people, we had one.
So, Getting on it early was a big advantage, and you can see that this is the case.
Anybody who doesn't learn how to use the various AI platforms to, let's say, take an image and combine it with some text, combine it with some other stuff, if you don't know how to do that in a few years, you're going to be left behind.
You won't be able to navigate anything.
You know, it'll be like you're living in a Suddenly you're living in a tribal situation.
Everybody else is living in civilization.
So to me, paying that $20 to have access to the first kind of important version of AI, I don't know how I can't pay that.
Like, I just have to pay that.
It just feels like a requirement to stay up to date.
Now, you know, that's sort of my job as well, to stay up to date with stuff.
So it might be different for you.
But, wow, this is a big deal.
But my larger point is that AI will be the source of insane amount of fraud.
So the AI is going to be creating deepfakes.
It's going to be making phone calls in other people's voices.
Do you remember the story about the 17-year-old who called Twitter employees and asked them for their password and pretended to be Twitter's IT department?
And it worked, for some people.
Now imagine if you got a phone call and it was Elon Musk's voice.
It comes from a phone number that's blocked.
If you heard Elon Musk's voice on your phone and it said, Hello, Scott.
I'd like you to maybe come out here and meet with me.
Do you think I would?
No, it wasn't really him.
Let's say I worked at the company.
If I worked at the company and I didn't have a lot of interaction with him personally, but it was possible if I'm an engineer or something, it's possible he could call me.
You don't think I'd believe it?
Even with caller ID, because, you know, numbers can be private and they can be spoofed and all that.
We're about to enter this massive, fraudulent environment where we won't know what is true.
I mean, it's even worse than now.
So, just look for that.
How many of you believe there's a secret, elite, pedophile ring that has power over at least America?
I'm just curious.
Now not necessarily Pizzagate, but how many believe that it does exist?
An elite pedophile ring.
I'm gonna say maybe.
I used to be strongly on the side of, oh, that's crazy.
Oh, that's crazy.
But I have to say that Epstein certainly seems to fit that model because he specifically was focusing on underage girls.
So I think Epstein is an example of an elite pedophile ring who were trying to get other people in compromising situations.
It looks like it.
So I don't know if Epstein specifically was part of the elite ring that people talk about.
I don't know.
Anyway, I'm going to get demonetized any minute now.
Trump has some competition.
I guess Nikki Haley is flirting with running, probably will.
Mike Pompeo, same.
And Tim Scott, the same.
Let me ask you this.
We probably all assume that if everything goes the way it looks like it's going, Trump should still have the biggest number of people in the primaries, and that should be enough to get him the nomination.
But here's my question.
In the hypothetical, if Tim Scott got the nomination, could he lose?
I don't see it.
Do you?
Tim Scott, a respected black Republican senator.
You don't think he could pick some votes off from the Democrats?
That's all he has to do, right?
You just have to pick off a few votes and you're good.
Because I think he would get 100% of Republicans.
Just like always.
Not really 100%, but you know.
He would get almost all the Republicans, and he'd pick off a few Independents and Democrats.
I feel like he couldn't lose.
How about Nikki Haley?
So now you've got a woman.
I guess she's a person of color.
I never know who is what these days.
Do you think that she could lose?
Nikki Haley?
I feel like she could.
Yeah, I feel like she could.
I feel like Tim Scott couldn't lose.
How about Mike Pompeo?
Do you think Mike Pompeo could win?
See, the trouble is, he's a white guy.
He's an older white guy.
So I think the older white guy doesn't get any help from the Democrats.
But also, he was the head of the CIA.
Do you think you could get enough Republicans to vote for the ex-head of the CIA?
Because I think Mike Pompeo is probably a solid person.
That's my view.
I think he's pretty solid.
But I would never vote for somebody who was the head of the CIA.
To me that's 100% disqualifying.
Or should be.
It wouldn't matter how much I agreed with him.
There's no way I'm going to say yes to somebody who was in the CIA.
I would never do that.
So I think other people would have the same opinion.
And again, it's nothing against him.
I don't have any... I actually don't have any negatives to say about him.
He seems pretty solid.
Pretty solid.
But that's got to be considered.
So I think Trump only has himself to beat.
He's really running against himself, wouldn't you say?
Does it feel like that?
Trump is only running against himself.
So if he stays in the middle of the road, he just goes all the way to the oval.
Yeah.
Anyway, that's what it looks like to me.
And the more people who get into the primaries, the more likely that Trump will win.
Here's something that I learned today.
So it's Groundhog Day, and if you're watching from a country that's not crazy America, you need to know that Groundhog Day is when a specific groundhog, well, they change him out once in a while, but his name each time is Puxatawney Phil or something like that.
And here's what I didn't know, is that the name of the town In which Pax Sotoni lives, is Gobbler's Knob.
Gobbler's Knob.
Now, that raises some questions.
If you saw my title for today's show, I said that the topics would be Trump, Stormy Daniels, and Gobbler's Knob.
Which is just a coincidence.
That's a coincidence.
But here's why.
I live in a town that is very much like the name of its town, right?
So I live in a very pleasant town, and the name of the town is actually Pleasanton.
Just like you'd expect.
If you go to a place that has Pleasant right in the name, there's also a nearby, there's a Pleasant Hill.
Very pleasant place.
Two places with pleasant in the name, and darn it, they're pretty pleasant.
But if I go to Gobbler's Knob, is that going to be as fun as it sounds?
I'm just wondering.
That's all.
But anyway, Phil saw his shadow or something, so we got six more weeks of winter or something like that.
Very important.
All right.
Dr. Kelly Victory said on Twitter today, she said, I'm fascinated that folks like Scott Adams are perplexed about how those of us who were right from the very beginning, and that's all in caps, right from the very beginning, knew what we knew.
How did we know?
And then she explains to me how she knew what she knew.
And listen to these solid reasons.
She said she studied science.
Excellent.
Good start.
She knows history.
This is her explanation of how she knew.
Good.
Studying science and knowing history.
Excellent.
Analyze patterns.
I love this.
Review data.
Excellent.
These are very rational things.
She was honest.
Well, that's a change from people like me, right?
And it was not difficult.
So between the science, the history, the patterns, the review data, She got it.
Now, here's my question.
How do I know who are the people who got it right?
Because I don't have these skills.
I do not have the skills that she possesses.
So I can't do it myself.
But how could I tell that she did it right if other people did the same thing and got different answers?
Hmm.
This would be the question which I deal with on the Spaces audio that you should go listen to when I end this early today.
So it seems that there are people who can do that.
They can look at the science, and the history, and the patterns, and the data, and then they can do their own deep dive, and then they can get an answer.
You should listen to one of the doctors that I talked to on spaces.
Wait to the end to hear this.
I'll just give you a little preview.
And that doctor did the same thing.
He's a man of science.
And he knows things.
And so one of the things he looked into was the great success of Ivermectin in India.
And that was a big part of his decision making.
And I asked him if he saw the debunks.
So there's a lot of information that said Ivermectin was a big success in India, but also there are separate articles and expert opinions that debunk it and say it's all garbage and none of that data is accurate.
So I asked him if he'd seen the debunks, but he had not.
So he was a man of science and pattern and history, and he had seen one set of data that I had seen, But he had not seen another set of data that I'd seen, and he had not.
And here's the question.
How did he know, or could he know, that I had seen other data?
How would he know that?
Well, he couldn't know.
How would I know, if I did my own research, like he did, how would I know if I saw everything?
Or if I'd missed something as gigantic as debunking the primary thing he used to make his decision.
That's pretty big.
Now I'm not saying the debunk was right, or that the original data was right.
I don't know.
But I am saying that if you didn't see the debunk, you couldn't really say you did your own research.
Or that you knew something.
See, this is the documentary problem.
If you watch the Michael Jackson documentary that says he was guilty of terrible things, it's very persuasive.
Super persuasive.
If you watch the other documentary right after it, that says that the first one was total garbage and here's how they lied to you, it's very persuasive.
100% persuasive.
And they're opposites.
So, how does your research help?
Basically, everybody looked at one of those two documentaries and said, I know what I know.
I'm done.
So the people who believe that they saw everything are hallucinating, because it's unlikely.
There are other people who said, I only needed to know that it was mandated by the government.
That's all you need to know.
The moment it's mandated, right?
Some people are agreeing with me.
I'm seeing a lot of thumbs up come out.
Yeah, as soon as you know it's mandated, that should be enough to know it's a bad idea.
Which is the same way I know those seatbelts don't work.
Right?
Now, all the data says the seatbelts work really well.
I'm aware of that.
But they're also mandated.
Which means the data is all fake.
Because once you mandate something, we're done with the conversation, I think.
I think we're done.
No, I didn't know that.
Oh, come on.
There's somebody on YouTube who says analogies are not persuasive.
What?
I'm hearing this for the first time.
How long should I keep up the prank?
They're not on to me yet, are they?
Has anybody figured out what I'm doing here yet?
I feel like I could say it directly at this point, and they still wouldn't see it.
Am I flip-flopping?
Am I walking the fence?
What's going on here?
What is he up to?
What is happening?
It's all so confusing.
Well, there's a new study out.
I don't know the details of it, but I saw that Brett Weinstein was mockingly saying he got another one right, which is that vitamin D appears to be strongly protective against COVID.
Now, can we all give Brett and Heather Heyer credit they deserve for getting that right and getting it early?
Everybody?
Can we give them full credit without reservation?
Without reservation, right?
Now, how'd I do on vitamin D?
Now, I'm pretty sure that I was one of the first people in the first month of the pandemic to tell you to take vitamin D. But I want to make a distinction that only the smart people here will understand.
Raise your hand if you're smart, because the rest of you won't understand this.
Yeah, but you're all smart, so you'll get this.
In addition to knowing that vitamin D is generally good for you, which Brett was correctly on it early, And I was on it early, and a lot of people were.
Would you agree that probably most of you knew it?
I didn't have to tell you.
Now there's a second vitamin D story, and here's where only the smart people will be able to follow me.
You ready?
The second story is that I'm making the claim, and if you falsify it, that would be fine, because I would love to know the truth.
If what I'm telling you is not true, Correct me, because I'd love to know the truth.
And it goes like this.
In addition to knowing that vitamin D is probably really good for you in general, I was the first person in the world, this is my claim, and oh yes, I know how it sounds.
Just so you're aware, I know totally how this sounds.
And I'm going to say it anyway.
I was the first person in the world to recognize the pattern That the people dying were all low vitamin D people.
And I said it in public.
Before anybody.
Nobody in the world.
No expert.
Nobody.
Noticed it before I did.
Now everybody said vitamin D is good for you.
But here's what I noticed.
Wait a minute.
Black Americans are doing worse?
Wait a minute.
Smokers are doing worse?
Old people and fat people are doing worse?
People with diabetes are doing worse.
People in some countries where there's not much vitamin D and there's a lot of smog are doing worse.
People in countries where you have to cover yourself up completely, such as Iran, are doing worse.
And I said, every place where they're doing worse, they have low vitamin D. And then I looked at Sweden and said, oh shoot, they supplement.
You would think they would have low vitamin D, but they have high vitamin D.
Somebody says, Cernovich beat me to the punch in January 2020.
I would love that to be true, because if somebody's going to beat me, I'd rather it be somebody I respect.
But check that.
I think you're going to find, and this is just a guess because I don't know, make the distinction between whether he said the vitamin D is protective and good for you, Or did he say, I see the pattern in all the demographics.
So I'm only making a claim that I saw the pattern of who died.
But a lot of people early said that vitamin D is good for you.
So that was a common thing.
Right?
Yeah, I came out of the womb screaming.
It's true.
Now, why do I say it so arrogantly and Obnoxiously.
Has anybody figured out why I do that yet?
Is it because I don't know how not to?
No, it's because the more provocative I am, the more likely you'll try to prove me wrong, and then maybe I'll find out if I'm wrong.
Because I'd like to be.
Well, I don't know if I'd like to be wrong, but I'd like to know the truth.
It is my claim On the biggest question of the pandemic, I think it was the biggest question, you know, what protects you and what doesn't, that beyond the generic, everybody needs vitamin D and it would help you, everybody got that right, that I noticed the pattern of the deaths and it was very clear in the first months.
But anyway, so if somebody also saw the demographic pattern, And say that before I did, send me a link to that.
I'll give them some love.
Because if anybody beat me to that, I'd be surprised.
I'm going to tell a story just to the locals people when we sign off here that's even more egomaniacal than what I just did.
There's a limit even for me.
Has he muted you or something?
I don't know what you're talking about.
There's a North Korea nuclear threat today?
I don't think there really is.
I mean, I know that he talks, but I don't think North Korea is anything we need to worry about at this point.
Have you noticed that a lot of the pushback on me is my personality? - Exactly.
Not what I say.
Like, on the spaces, one of the people just had to come on and tell me that my problem is I'm a brainwashed narcissist.
I kept wanting to, like, maybe dig into the argument, but it turns out the argument is I'm a brainwashed narcissist.
Okay.
How many of you think my live stream personality or my Twitter personality is a good proxy for my actual real person personality?
Do you think that... I mean, clearly there are things that I wouldn't say in person that I say in public for effect.
But I trust most of you to know when I'm doing it for effect.
I do it for provocation, because provocation is fun.
It gets you more into the fight.
It's part of the fun.
Talk about myself too much.
The trouble is, I am the news.
If you talk about the news and you're in the news, It's a little weird situation, because I actually end the news today.
If you saw a tweet from Legendary Energy, do you all know that Twitter account, Legendary Energy?
So there's a young man with crazy eyes.
I saw his eyes.
As soon as I saw his eyes on the tweet, I saw the crazy eyes, I was like, oh, this is going to be fun.
So he has apparently decided that I am lumped in with my vaccination opinion with Sam Harris, who promoted it, and Ben Shapiro, who also strongly recommended people get vaccinated.
And then he said to three of them, and then he treated us like we were the same.
Now, how many of you think that my opinion on vaccinations were similar to Sam Harris or Ben Shapiro?
How many of you think that?
That was similar.
Some are saying yes.
Some are saying yes.
Identical.
No.
Now those of you who say yes, are you puzzled by all the people saying no?
That's weird, isn't it?
Because most of the people are saying no.
Why is that?
Maybe it's because two of them recommended the vaccination and one recommended That you wait as long as possible, because it's risky, and I certainly would not recommend it.
Does that sound the same to you?
But poor legendary energy in his crazy eyes.
By the way, his eyes are complete cognitive dissonance eyes.
If you look at the tweet, and you want to see what's it look like when somebody's entered, you know, just illusion land, Just look at his eyes in that picture.
When you learn to recognize the look in the eyes, it changes everything.
That's what hypnotists learn.
So a hypnotist can tell when you're actually, you're just sort of in a little bubble of illusion.
Now, you could argue everybody's in an illusion all the time, which I do.
But sometimes you're just flat out hallucinating.
And the eyes always tell it.
It's sort of like crazy eyes.
I can't do an impression of it.
But he's got serious crazy eyes.
Yeah, sort of the Adam Schiff look.
Adam Schiff's eyes tell you that he's lying.
You ever see?
Alright.
So I'm gonna cut it short today, because there's not much going on.
And I do recommend that you listen to The Spaces.
Check my Twitter feed.
It will entertain you and delight you.
And that's all for now on the YouTube platform, but I'm going to talk to the locals for a little bit.