Episode 2183 Scott Adams: All The Fake Summer News you Love To Enjoy With Coffee
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
-----------
Politics, Harvard Leadership Expert, Elon Musk, UFO Whistleblower, Yevgeny Prigozhin, Isometrics Meta-analysis, Biden Crime Family, Hunter Biden Plea Deal, CNN Hunter Spin, President Trump, Sam Bankman-Fried, RFK Jr,, Secret Service Protection, Alejandro Mayorkas, Governor DeSantis, Hunter Biden Presidential Pardon, Facebook COVID Censorship, llhan Omar, Hypnotizing America, President Biden, Scott Adams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 Human Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, and I don't think there's been a better time in your whole life.
And if you'd like to take this experience up to levels which nobody's ever experienced before, all you need is a cup or a mug or a glass, a tank or a chalice or a stein, a canteen jug or a flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the Dopamedia of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called simultaneous sip.
Go.
Ah.
You know, I was wondering, has anybody chopped up any parts of their homemade bacon today?
Is anybody making homemade bacon today?
No, I saw it in the comments.
Yes, I was very curious about your bacon.
But I think all questions have been answered.
All right, let's talk about all the fake BS in the news.
I call this next section, why no one should go to Harvard.
No one should go to Harvard.
If you follow the news at all for the last several years, I shouldn't need to finish the point.
But believe it or not, there's new reason not to go to Harvard.
Are you ready for this?
There's a Harvard leadership expert named Bill George who says that Elon Musk's Twitter rebrand suggests that he is, quote, totally out of his element, says Harvard leadership expert.
Bill George, quote, if you had to write a case study on an example of a really poor takeover of an organization, Elon Musk's takeover of Twitter would fit that perfectly well, George, an executive fellow at Harvard Business School, leadership author, and former CEO, tells CNBC.
And then he goes on to say, quote, I don't think he understands social media.
Oh, my God.
What do you even say to that?
Who would send their kid to a school that has people like that in charge?
Do I even need to finish the point?
Does anybody need me to say?
Let me just say the obvious.
If any of you knew what Musk should or should not do in any given situation, You would be richer than him.
He's literally the most successful non-traditional manager of all time.
Of all time!
Versus this guy who's a leadership guy at Harvard who probably is not in the top 10 richest people in the world.
Probably not.
So I don't think that Elon Musk Could be better for Twitter.
To me, he seems the perfect fit.
If you look at his tweets, it's obvious that he understands at least Twitter.
I mean, Musk understands how to tweet better than anybody since Trump.
He's one of the best tweeters of all time.
That's not an accident.
It's not just because he's interesting and because he owns Twitter.
He's also an amazing, amazing tweeter.
Or whatever he wants to call it these days.
So, I don't know.
When I see anybody tell me that they can do what Elon Musk does, but do it better, I just shake my head.
I go, ah, prove it.
Prove it.
Do you think you can do better than that?
Let's see what you can do.
All right, well, UFOs are still not real.
You know, How much time did Congress spend on the most ridiculous thing in the world?
Looking into UFOs?
Can you think of anything, I don't know, anything in the world that maybe Congress could have been working on that would have been more value than looking into the UFO whistleblower?
How many of you believe that UFOs are real?
Based on the stories from The Whistleblower.
Well, let's put it this way.
Forget about whether UFOs are real.
Do you think The Whistleblower's story is real?
How many believe The Whistleblower?
It's all no, right?
I was watching him again, and he is the least credible looking person you'll ever see.
He just has a presentation style that says, I don't know.
That doesn't look real to me.
All right, well, once again, I think I can claim I have the smartest audience.
Do you think that the average audience would all say no?
Because I don't think so.
I think you would get at least half of the people saying, I think it might be.
I think it might be.
I think this audience is just way more tuned into what's bullshit.
Would you agree?
Do you think that's true?
That this audience can spot BS better than other audiences?
Other groups of people?
I think so.
To me it seems very true.
This is what we talk about all the time.
All right.
Have you seen the grainy pictures of Purgosian allegedly in Belarus?
So it turns out That the best images you can get of Purgosian are worse than the best, or I guess they're worse than the bad UFO pictures.
So there's a picture of him that's so bad you can only see him in a silhouette at night.
And I'm thinking, that's the best picture of him after all these days, or the best video.
It's the best video of him after all these days, is one you can't even make out for sure if it's him or where he is.
But there's that other photograph.
That's the best video they have.
But a photograph of him shaking hands with one African leader guy when it looks like he wasn't really working because he was in his blue jeans.
Do you think that's current?
Or stage, possibly?
Now, I don't necessarily think he's dead.
Because it would make more sense to keep him alive and just keep interrogating him and make sure you know everything he knows.
But I don't believe for a moment that was a current and non-staged picture.
And I don't believe for a moment those grainy pictures of him reviewing the troops in Belarus.
I don't think any of that's true.
How many of you think that Purgosian Is, let's say, alive and just living his best life in Russia.
Does anybody think that's true?
Because CNN is acting like it might be true.
They're reporting it like, well, you know, we're not positive, but it kind of looks like there he is.
So, I'm going to call that as about as likely as the UFOs.
CNN also has a study.
They're reporting that the best exercise to reduce your blood pressure is isometric.
Isometric.
So they used to think that cardio was the best and maybe lifting, but isometric where you press against yourself.
You know, you're using your own muscles against your own muscles.
Or you're pressing against a wall or something trying to stand up.
But anything where you're just doing isometrics.
Now does that sound real?
Does that sound credible to you?
You think that's true?
So here's how they determined it was true.
Something called a meta-analysis.
They did a meta-analysis of existing studies, and they teased that out of the data.
Don't you think that CNN has an obligation, since CNN... You tell me if this is true.
Is it true or not that CNN has all the guests who say, those other people need to follow the science?
Am I right?
They're the ones always lecturing us, us meaning anybody else, about, uh, you're not following the science, but the sciences, you gotta follow the science.
And then they report this story and they say it's based on a meta, meta-analysis.
Do you think that they understand science well enough to know that a meta-analysis is basically astrology?
Do you think they had an obligation to tell their audience a meta-analysis is not a science?
And you all know why?
Meta-analysis is where you look at all the sketchy studies, but then you decide which ones are in and which ones are out, because in your opinion, some of them are just too bad.
Well, other ones are bad, but not too bad.
And then maybe one of the studies is really big, and it biases everything.
So it didn't even matter if there were any small ones, because really it ended up being just the same as if they looked at one study that wasn't reliable.
Meta-analysis is not real, in the sense that it does not produce a scientific outcome.
It's closer to a subjective process.
Don't you think CNN should tell its audience that meta-analysis is not exactly science?
That seems basic.
Well, there's this study and they came out with this outcome, but we should warn you that a meta-analysis is not exactly science.
That seems basic, but no, that's not there.
All right.
Now, as you know, the biggest story in the world Right now is that the Biden crime family has been completely uncovered.
At this point, the entire public can see from beginning to end that it was a criminal family enterprise.
And we know exactly how they got the money and there's pretty good evidence that it was held in, you know, hidden in shell companies and various banks and they didn't pay taxes in every case and all that.
So you'd think that'd be the biggest story on CNN, am I right?
If I went to the CNN page, they'd be all about that because I've never heard a bigger story.
That's about as big a story as you could possibly get.
Yeah, not so much.
Let's see.
One of the stories about the Hunter Biden situation is the plea deal fell apart.
So let's talk about what might happen next.
Does that sound like it covers the depth and breadth of what we saw?
Well, the plea deal fell apart.
Let's talk about what might happen next.
It sounds like they're really going right at this, aren't they?
But that's not all.
That's not all.
They do talk about why the so-called sweetheart deal fell apart, which they don't call a sweetheart deal, which is weird.
It's funny, it seems like a lot of people do, but they don't refer to it as a sweetheart deal.
In fact, they said that this was actually on CNN.
I'm not making this up.
This might sound like I'm making it up.
I'm not making this up.
CNN had a guy in there reporting that the Hunter Biden sweetheart deal, that they don't call a sweetheart deal, fell apart because the judge realized it was not really fair to Hunter.
Seriously.
Seriously.
If you were watching CNN, you would believe that the Hunter Biden deal, the plea deal, fell apart because it wasn't fair enough to Hunter.
That was actually, literally, I'm not making that up.
That's actually what CNN is reporting.
Now, reporting it as one person's opinion about what happened, but fell apart because it wasn't fair to poor Hunter.
That's what happened there.
Does that blow your mind?
Is your head just... No.
No, it doesn't blow your mind because we've been Trained to be used to it.
We have been trained to put our hand on the electric fence, and when it shocks us, we just keep it there.
Yeah, we're just conditioned to anything, which we'll talk about in a moment.
But But CNN is all about the new Trump charges.
Oh, let me tell you, when you thought there was going to be a story about The grand jury doesn't look like they're gonna...
Add charges for trying to overcome, I don't know.
There's so many Trump illegitimate-looking probes that I get them confused.
But one of them looks like there won't be charges from a grand jury.
But then, coincidentally, just when the news cycle needed it, at exactly the right time, some charges were added to the box gate.
That's right.
Box gate got a little more attention today.
The secret boxes, because the news cycle wasn't going the right way.
So now Boxgate gets extra charges.
But it might make a difference, these extra charges, because it includes another staff member who might be part of, allegedly, Trump's request to remove or delete stuff from the server.
Now, if you were Trump, And you knew that there was people coming and they might want to look at your video cameras, and you didn't want anybody to see your video cameras.
Not necessarily because of this crime.
You know what I'm talking?
Do you think Trump has more than one reason to not want people to see all of his video security in Mar-a-Lago?
Yes, there's more than one reason he doesn't want people to see the security cameras.
As in privacy?
Privacy?
What about personal privacy?
Isn't that a really, really, really good reason to not want anybody to see your entire video cameras from an entire period?
Who would want that?
So, given what we know about, let's say, Hillary deleting her servers, if you were Trump, And you thought, okay, I don't know what there is on there about boxes or anything else, but I definitely don't want anybody to see all of my security for all the people that I've interacted with for this entire period.
I definitely don't want that.
So do you think it would be a good risk to tell your staff to delete it before it would normally be deleted on its own?
Would that be a good risk?
Would that be unwise to take that risk?
I feel like it was a good risk.
I feel like I might have done it in his situation.
I might have done it.
Specifically because you saw that Hillary got away with everything.
I mean, she was pounding things with hammers and allegedly, you know, deleting servers and all kinds of stuff.
So honestly, I think I might have done that myself.
You know, independent of whether there was anything on there about Boxgate, You don't give away all of your video security evidence without a fight.
Would you agree?
If somebody wants to take all of your privacy, you're going to go down with a fight.
And that's what it looks like to me.
Now, I don't know if anything he did or is alleged to do about the video.
I don't know if any of it is relevant to the boxes.
It could be.
I wouldn't rule it out.
But you have a much better reason to get rid of your security than one court case.
Although that could be sufficient, but the other reasons are pretty strong.
All right, so let's see what else is going on here.
that looks illegitimate.
Yeah, so I'm going to go ahead and So Sam Bankman Freed, the crypto scammer, second biggest donor to the Democrats.
You'll be amazed to hear that charges have been dropped regarding campaign finance charges.
So you will not be charged with campaign finance problems.
There was some, I saw some tweet that it was because we couldn't get cooperation from the Bahamas.
Does that sound real to you?
Does that sound even a little bit real?
No, no.
I think you should assume that this is exactly what it looks like.
Big Democrat donor and wherever they can, they'll drop charges.
Now, can somebody give me a fact check?
These were not his only charges.
He's not a free man, right?
These were just related to campaign campaigns.
But aren't the bigger charges about fraud in general for the business itself, right?
Wait, he's a free man?
I think there are multiple charges.
So I don't know the whole situation, but I think he's in more legal trouble.
But at least that part of it went away.
And nobody's surprised.
Is anybody surprised?
Do you think he'll go to jail?
Or will he be freed because he was so useful to Democrats?
You don't really expect Freed.
Is his name Fried or Freed?
Freed or Fried?
It's Freed?
So he was Freed and... No, he wasn't Freed, but his name is Freed.
All right.
Here's something that RFK Jr.
tweeted today that is so outrageous that you're going to wonder if it's true.
I have to admit, I want to see if there's a counter to this.
So this is a fog of war early reporting.
So you're seeing a claim on one side, but you're not seeing the counterclaim or the defense.
So I wouldn't necessarily assume this is 100% true.
However, it's coming from RFK Jr., who doesn't have a history of lying, right?
The complaints about him are, you know, he's over-interpreting some science or something like that.
But nobody accuses him of lying, as far as I know.
So consider that the source is generally considered an unusually honest source in general.
But here's what RFK Jr.
says in a tweet.
Since the assassination of my father in 1968, candidates for president are provided Secret Service protection, but not me.
Typical turnaround for pro-forma protection.
Now, pro-forma means it's just a simple process, right?
Pro-forma protection requests from presidential candidates is 14 days.
So it should have taken two weeks to get approval to get him his own protection.
After 88 days of no response, and after several follow-ups by our campaign, well, first of all, just hold that in your mind.
There's a major presidential campaign that's not even getting a response.
Not even getting a response.
Wow.
After 88 days of no response and after several follow-ups.
I mean, just think about that.
Even after the follow-ups, no response.
The Biden administration just denied our request.
What?
Secretary Mayorkas said, quote, I have determined that Secret Service protection for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
is not warranted at this time.
RFK says our campaign's request included a 67-page report from the world's leading protection firm detailing the unique and well-established security and safety risks aside from commonplace death threats.
Are you shocked?
Let me do a little analysis of RFK Jr.' 's risk.
Now, I don't know about this 67-page report, but I feel like I could maybe shortcut that.
His last name is Kennedy, and he's running for president to dismantle the CIA.
And you don't see any problem there?
Oh, I don't see any risk there?
Are you fucking kidding me?
How incompetent would you have to be to imagine that RFK Jr., running for president, is not The maximum amount of risk a candidate could be at.
He's not even in the bottom 50% of risk.
He's a 10 and a 10.
I think every citizen of the United States, when they heard he was running, said to themselves immediately, oh shit, that's risky.
Do you think we're all wrong?
The entire adult population of the United States?
Do you think we're all wrong that he has an elevated risk?
Now, even if you don't buy elevated risk, he's running second on the Democrat side.
He's in second place.
I mean, it's a distant second, but he's in second place.
And the guy who's running first doesn't have any chance of being president.
And they're not going to give him protection, or they're ignoring it, or at least they did for a long time.
Now, I'm going to go, I'm going to take this further.
So Mayorkas is the one who turned this down, and we see no reason that this could be legitimate.
It looks like an assassination attempt to me.
In my opinion, this looks like a Mayorkas assassination attempt against a major presidential candidate.
It looks like he's in on it.
If this were the only thing that Mayorkas ever did that was sketchy, you might say to yourself, you know, there are probably reasons I don't know about.
Maybe they're the experts and they know something we don't know.
If it were the only thing.
But Mayorkas is also the person who can't explain why the border keeps being open while he keeps saying it isn't.
Right?
Now let me ask you this.
How long does Mayorkas have to act exactly as if he is being blackmailed?
Before you say that's the most likely explanation.
Mayorkas looks, he looks and acts like somebody who's being blackmailed by somebody.
Do you think that anybody in Mayorkas' job would have turned down RFK Jr.
and then And their job of protecting the border would have just done the opposite for years.
The opposite of not protecting the border.
How do you explain that with just incompetence?
Do you think that could be explained by he's not good at his job?
Does anybody think that?
Does anybody think the problem is he's not good at his job?
Anybody?
No.
He presents himself as a blackmailed person.
Am I right?
Now, I can't make a claim of fact, so this is not a claim of fact.
I have no facts.
I'm saying that if you have a major, you know, a super important government position who consistently acts as though they're blackmailed by an adversary, at what point do you take that seriously?
Don't you have to take that seriously kind of right away?
Now, he could be blackmailed by Democrats.
He could be blackmailed by... It could be he's blackmailing himself in the sense that if Republicans got in charge, maybe they'd find out something about him.
He doesn't want them to find out.
But he looks like somebody who's operating under duress.
Maybe that's a better way to say it.
He does not look like somebody who's making his own decisions.
He looks like he's operating under duress.
Am I wrong?
Yeah, you all see it, right?
So, remember what I say about the government.
Individuals have to be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
But he's working in an official capacity with the backing of the government.
In other words, Biden is not disagreeing with him on anything.
Right?
You're not seeing the rest of the government say, no, Mayorkas don't act like that.
They're backing him.
So you can't say it's about Mayorkas specifically.
It's about the government.
When the government acts like it's blackmailed, that's your working assumption.
Your working assumption should be it's exactly what it looks like.
And what it looks like is they're not doing the work of the people.
They have some other interest or something else they're protecting.
Now under those conditions, how in the world do you not remove that guy?
How in the world?
I mean, seriously.
Now obviously it makes sense for Biden to keep him if Biden likes what he's doing.
And, you know, he's not, he's not acting, he's not acting independently.
So somebody, somebody has control of him, whether it's his boss or somebody else.
But I think we have to stop pretending as though these are patriots acting independently for the best interest of the people.
It's very clear that's not happening.
We just don't know who's influencing him.
Or if he's influencing himself in some weird way.
So I have no claims of fact.
I have only claims that it looks exactly like somebody is being blackmailed and that's our government.
So maybe we should have a government that doesn't act exactly as if it's being blackmailed by an outside force.
But more generally, does it seem to you that Congress is acting like the cartels own it?
How many of you think that Congress, not every member of course, but as a body, does it look like the cartels already got them?
They already seem captured, don't they?
Now I don't know how many people you would have to capture in order to block any legislation that would be anti-cartel, but it looks like they got enough.
Because the Congress is not acting like an independent body working for the benefit of the United States.
It doesn't look like it's on our side.
And that's very different from being incompetent.
Because you know what incompetence looks like.
You see it all the time.
But when you watch that the Congress can't get rid of TikTok?
Seriously.
Congress can't block TikTok.
We don't need to go into the details.
But does that look like they're just doing their job, but they might disagree with you about what's good for the country?
Does it look like that at all?
It does not.
It looks like foreign influence of some kind.
And when we look at how we're dealing with the border, etc., you do hear people complaining.
I would say unambiguously and without any question whatsoever, Matt Gaetz is not blackmailed by anybody.
Would you agree?
It's clear that the cartels are not blackmailing Matt Gaetz.
Because you listen to him talk and you say there's an independent person, with an independent opinion, at great personal risk.
Great personal risk.
That's real, right?
So, and there are a number of other people, you know, your Tom Cotton's, etc.
I don't think that they have any influence other than trying to do a good job.
But there must be some number of people in Congress Who are causing the body in general to act as though it's owned by the cartels.
So I think at this point we have to ask yourself, when do you start looking into that?
Is that something we need to be looking into?
Because they're not acting like independent people.
All right.
So did you see, let's see, what was it?
Tim... Why am I forgetting his name?
Who is the Tim running for president?
No, Tim Scott.
Did I just forget my own name?
I literally just forgot my own name.
I was like, Tim who?
Oh yeah, Tim Scott.
Scott, yeah.
That literally just happened.
I actually literally forgot my own name right in front of you.
So not my best performance.
But Tim Scott, running for president, is criticizing DeSantis for what Tim Scott characterizes as an opinion from DeSantis that maybe slavery had some upside for the slaves.
Now, you all know that that never happened, right?
You know that Nobody, not DeSantis, not a DeSantis supporter, not any Republican, not any pundit, not anybody anywhere ever said that slavery was kind of a good deal for slaves.
Nobody ever said that.
But yet we're going to do this summer theater where we pretend somebody said it so we could pretend to be angry about the thing that we were pretending happened.
So, now that's the sort of thing you expect Democrats to do.
Am I right?
I'm sure both sides does it.
Maybe I just don't notice when it's on one side.
But you don't really want to see a Republican running for president who's blaming Ron DeSantis for some racist sounding thing that never happened.
That's a Democrat, right?
So if Tim Scott is running as a Democrat, he's doing a good job.
But I don't want to see that shit from a Republican.
I'm a registered Democrat, and even I don't want to see it.
So, I don't think Tim Scott has any chance.
It looks like Ron DeSantis is himself faltering in the polls.
What do you think was DeSantis' biggest problem?
Being boring?
Running against Trump?
Maybe his biggest problem is he's just running against Trump.
And what can you do?
Well, I don't think he counter-punched in any way that worked.
I think the campaign is saying something like, I don't know, That they reduced the staff by 30%.
So I don't think anybody thinks he has a shot at this point unless the legal system takes Trump out.
Which is possible.
It might.
It might.
How would you like to see an end result This is just hypothetical.
Everybody's running for first place.
Nobody's running to be vice president.
We all get that.
But just imagine the situation in the end.
Imagine Trump winning the presidency.
Imagine Vivek as a vice president who's like a COO.
So he's not just waiting for Trump to have a medical problem.
He's actually doing more of a Jared project, making things happen, especially domestically.
And then maybe Trump doing more international stuff.
But then imagine DeSantis as Attorney General.
And then imagine RFK Jr.
having some specialized role, maybe not a cabinet position, but some specialized role to just go dismantle the CIA or whatever it is they need to do that people agree with.
That would be pretty close to a dream team, wouldn't it?
Because, again, DeSantis is not killing it in terms of his campaign, but I want to say very clearly, he's a solid, solid patriot.
Solid, smart, capable executive.
We would do fine if he were president.
I think the country would be in good hands with a President DeSantis.
It doesn't look like it's going to happen.
But again, I'd like to point out how lucky we are that we have the best, in my opinion, this is the best group of candidates I've seen in my lifetime.
But wouldn't it be good if we could get the benefits of all of them?
And we do have a situation that's starting to form where that's not impossible.
It's unlikely.
It's still unlikely, because that's a lot of ifs to come together.
But there is a possibility.
That Trump could put together the dream team of all dream teams.
That's very possible.
I don't know how likely it is, but it's possible.
Now, I'm going to double down on saying that there will not be a second term of Biden.
I think that's the one thing we can rule out at this point.
How many would agree with that?
That the only thing you can rule out for sure is it won't be President Biden.
Yeah.
There's no way he's going to survive the age and the Biden crime family revelations.
It's too big.
Now, on the other hand, you've got Trump with these, you know, it seems like endless legal problems.
It's easy for me to imagine Trump getting through his legal problems.
What do you think?
Is it easy for you to imagine that?
Because I don't think they're necessarily real.
Well, they could be real in a technical sense, but not real in the sense that you would typically bring these charges against somebody in his position.
But then, his chances of getting elected and then pardoning himself, pretty good, if there's anything to pardon.
Now, I saw Jonathan Turley speculating that one of the plays that Joe Biden could use is Pardon Hunter and then Drop out of the race.
What do you think of the odds that Joe Biden would pardon Hunter and drop out of the race?
I don't know.
Pretty good.
Yeah, pretty good.
It's not zero.
So I think either Biden runs, Which I think is unlikely, but it's possible.
I'm going to go 60-40.
60% he doesn't run, but 40 is still a lot.
So it could happen.
But he can't win.
I don't think he'd win against anybody, actually.
I think that the Democrats may be hallucinating if they're still in the Biden can beat Trump world.
I think that boat sailed.
Maybe I'm biased and maybe I'm wishful thinking or something like that.
Maybe.
I will cop to that.
I could be.
But how in the world does somebody who can't speak and campaign and has now been outed as quite definitely the head of a crime family, as far as the public can tell, how in the world does that win?
Cheating?
I don't know.
That'd be a pretty risky cheat this time.
But you're right, they'll probably do it.
There's new news about Facebook censoring people about COVID.
That would be the least surprising story.
Didn't you think we already knew everything about that?
Do you need new information that Facebook was suppressing some things at the request of the government?
It's not going to surprise you if there was some Trump administration requests and also some Biden requests, right?
That's not going to surprise you.
But in both cases, that's exactly what it looked like.
Well, Ilan Omar is making some news.
She was on Al Jazeera saying that America should be more fearful of white men because white men are causing most of the deaths in this country.
Now, do we need to do the thing where we say, wait a minute, If anybody said that in some other way, they'd be a racist and all that.
But no, I think we can just point out that she's a virulent racist and leave it at that.
She got elected.
I guess people wanted a virulent racist to be their representative.
They got one.
On the positive side, Ilhan Omar has crazy charisma.
Have you ever noticed that?
I'm always impressed at her public I don't know.
Presentation.
She looks great.
She speaks great.
She's got the power.
She's a very powerful person.
So at an individual level, she's quite awesome.
But on a political level, she's kind of dangerous and racist.
All right.
How many of you saw my summer thread?
About the UFOs on Twitter.
Some of you saw it, but I'm gonna read the whole thing because it's fun.
Now, I tell you in advance that this is a summer thread, right?
Summer thread means don't believe it.
It's just for fun.
It's sort of like yelling at DeSantis for the thing that didn't happen and he doesn't think.
It's just summer fun, right?
It's like UFOs.
They're not real, but it's summer fun.
So, in the spirit of summer fun, I give you the following thread.
I sometimes see the world as a secret battle among persuasion wizards.
Sort of like the movie Underworld, in which the vampires and werewolves are waging a war that humans don't notice.
By that filter, I'm seeing a frightening signal.
I'll explain.
When Democrats succeeded in persuading half of the public that Republicans staged an insurrection and didn't bring guns, we entered a whole new realm.
As a hypnotist, if I had been on the team that pulled that off, I would have one really big question.
And the question was, I'd want to know if there was any limit to what you could sell to half of the public that votes for Democrats.
I would want to test it.
And to test it, I would introduce to the news cycle a whistleblower with the most implausible story I can imagine.
Yep.
I would plant a story that the U.S.
has multiple captured alien ships and even some dead aliens.
And I would ask you to accept that these aliens routinely navigate the vastness of space and crash mostly in America.
If half of the public believes that story, the country is ripe for a takeover from within.
As a hypnotist, that's how I'd test the quote, the subject, to see if they are in a fully suggestible state.
I'd suggest something absurd, such as one arm becoming weightless.
That's a typical hypnotist thing.
I don't hold any filter on reality to be true.
But some filters seem to predict better than others.
And that might be worth something.
This filter predicts that the next suggestion that comes packaged as news will be another escalation of absurdity and or the takeover play.
As in taking over the country play.
And then I say at the end, this is a summer tweet, so don't take it too seriously.
It means nothing.
You'll forget it by the time you stop reading this part of the thread or hearing it.
There is nothing to see here.
Kittens are soft.
Don't you have something you need to be doing right now?
Forget it.
Forget what you heard.
There is no battle with wizards.
There is no persuasion battle behind the scenes.
Forget what you've seen.
All right.
And there you go.
So let me explain a little bit about the hypnosis part.
If you're hypnotizing somebody...
The way that you get them from just being relaxed and willing to do what you're suggesting to a whole different mindset where you're effectively controlling their actions and thoughts and voluntarily they're letting you do it.
And one of the things that you try to accomplish is you start by getting the subject to do things that they think They're only doing because maybe they're playing along.
So you might say, you know, your eyes are getting heavy and you're blinking more and stuff like that.
And the subject will be thinking there, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay, you made me think about my eyes, so yeah, I'm blinking more.
But you know, blinking is no big deal, I'm doing it because I want to.
And Then if you keep working on them, with suggestions and imagery and the rest of the induction, you get to the point where you try to get them to do something that they don't recognize as their own choice.
So that's where the floating arm is.
If you could have somebody who's aware, you know, they know exactly what's happening, they know they're being hypnotized, they know that you're making the suggestion their arm is light, but that they actually feel their arm float.
If you can get them to that point, Then they're deeply, deeply suggestible.
And that's what the news cycle did to the public.
It started out with stories where maybe you said to yourself, I don't know, that might be true, maybe not.
And they've got us to the point where half of the public was wondering if the United States has captured aliens from other planets.
They got us all the way there.
The captured alien really feels like the floating arm thing in the sense that it seems intentionally, it seems, I'm not saying it is, it seems intentionally chosen to test your level of susceptibility.
As in, the very next thing that you would expect by this filter is they would try something more outrageous than the UFO story.
Or more outrageous than hiding the Biden crime family as if it didn't happen.
So, if the news succeeds in making the Biden crime family story go away, like it didn't even exist, that would be bigger than a UFO story.
To me, that would be bigger.
So, That could be the play.
Or there could be some absolute takeover play where they're going to cancel the elections and declare martial law or some damn thing.
But what you should expect next by that filter, and again, remember, this is just the summer thread.
Don't take anything too seriously.
It's mostly Republicans pushing for transparency.
Don't be fooled by that, Juan.
So here's what Juan is saying.
He's saying that it's the Republicans who are pushing for the transparency, so it would not be reasonable to say that the Democrats are running an op with that.
Do you see what's wrong with that?
Do I have to tell you what's wrong with that, Juan?
Or can you see it yourself?
No, it was mostly Republicans.
He's right about that.
What was the political affiliation of the whistleblower?
Is a whistleblower a Republican?
And do you think they would have had the hearings without a whistleblower?
No, it's the whistleblower.
The whistleblower is the reason for the hearings.
The fact that it's the Republicans who bought it just means the Democrats were smart enough to stay away from their own op.
Imagine if the Democrats had gone in hard and said, oh yeah, we better look into this.
But they didn't.
Now what is it about UFOs that's political?
Did anybody learn that Democrats don't believe in UFOs and Republicans do?
No.
Nothing like that.
What would cause a complete lack of bipartisanship about aliens?
It's almost as if one side knew it was an op.
It's almost like that, isn't it?
Because you can't tell me that there's even one Democrat who thinks, well, that whistleblower sounded a little bit like he might be telling the truth, and we should look into it.
Not one Democrat, right?
No, UFOs are not politics.
But somehow it came down by, you know, by party lines.
How does that happen?
Well, it happens when one side knows it's an op, and the way the op works better is if only the Republicans are holding the hearing.
Because then it looks like it's a Republican thing, just like Juan said.
How easily you were fooled, Juan.
Because the whistleblower, I don't know if the whistleblower is a Democrat, but The whistleblower is the story.
He's the whole story.
So if he's legitimate, then the Democrats maybe are just playing some political stuff.
But if he's running it up, and he knows what he says is not true, and coincidentally no Democrats wanted to be associated with him, but the Republicans said we better look into this, that doesn't tell you that there's a little bit of sketchiness going on with this guy?
A little bit?
You don't think you'll ever find that he has connections to prominent Democrats or operators?
You don't think you're ever going to find that out?
Do you want to make a prediction from this filter?
So this is not my prediction.
This is what the filter would predict.
The filter on this would predict that someday you'll find out he has some Democrat connections you didn't know about.
Am I right?
Presumably, you're going to find that out.
Now, I'm not saying I'm not making an accusation myself.
I'm saying that if that view of the world is correct, or even just predictable, we would find that out someday.
Do you think you're going to find out he's a total Republican, he's a MAGA, extreme MAGA guy?
Does anybody want to take a bet he's not a MAGA guy?
Anybody want to take the other side of that bet?
Yeah?
No?
I'll bet he's not.
Oh, Betty's not pro-Trump?
All right.
If you can destroy one whistleblower, you can destroy them all.
Well, yes.
So then there's also the thought that having a fake whistleblower, if that's what he turns out to be, would be one way to discredit the real ones.
So the real ones are the ones who are outing Hunter Biden.
Oh, but coincidentally, there's another whistleblower who's total BS, maybe.
Oh, what a coincidence.
So now, what does the public think about these whistleblowers?
So CNN probably is going to convince you that That meta-analysis is reliable and whistleblowers are not.
The ones that have the same story, under oath, multiple people.
You're probably going to hear they're not credible.
All right.
Bob Lazar.
No, I don't believe anything Bob Lazar says.
Bob Lazar did not strike me as even a little bit credible.
Not even a little bit.
Under oath means nothing.
Do you know why he's not at risk?
Because he can say somebody told me, and I'm going on what they told me.
And then the worst case scenario is they'll say, but we talked to the person who told you, and they say they did not tell you that.
And then he says, I swear I heard it.
And then it's one word against another word, and then what do you do?
Doesn't sound like he's lying.
I think he could easily tell the story that he believed that what he was hearing was true.
And that's not a lie.
I mean, he wouldn't be convicted of a lie.
It might be a lie, but he wouldn't be convicted of one.
All right, well, I don't believe anything about him.
Planted memories?
It's not impossible.
You could plant memories in people.
It's a thing.
I don't think that's what's happening, but it's a thing.
Yeah, discrediting whistleblowers might be the play.
But it gets them everything.
It gets them the news cycle, the discrediting whistleblowers.
Henry says, Scott accepts all Trump's crimes as nothing to see.
Do I do that?
I think that some of Trump's alleged crimes are technical crimes.
Have I ever said differently?
But I'm saying what the experts seem to say, which is these technical crimes would be somewhat common to everybody in office.
Yeah, you could probably randomly pick a senator and there would be some technical crimes, but you might not care about them.
And you might be better off, you know, not bugging your leaders on the technical stuff.
So my view is not that he did or did not commit any technical crimes.
I think that he was not trying to do an insurrection, per se.
And I think he probably doesn't want you to see his documents in Boxgate.
So I'm not defending him.
I've never defended Trump for, let's say, Trump University.
Have you ever heard me defend him for that?
I think Trump is somewhat an open book in terms of, you know, if you think you want somebody who never did anything with women that you wouldn't approve of, well, he's not your guy.
He's just not your guy.
If you want the one who's told the truth every time, no, he's not your guy.
He is not your guy.
If you want somebody who will probably accomplish a certain set of things that you might want for your country, he might be your guy.
But if you're judging your plumber by whether he got divorced, you're gonna have bad plumbing.
If I hire a plumber, I say, are you gonna fix my plumbing?
Yes.
Do you have a gambling problem?
Well, yeah.
Okay, I don't care.
Did you cheat on your wife?
I don't care.
I don't care.
Just fix the plumbing.
So Trump is a fix-the-plumbing kind of guy in my world.
And by the way, if Joe Biden did all of these alleged crimes, and then was also killing it in terms of getting the country on the right track, and everything else looked like he was on our side, I wouldn't feel the same.
I wouldn't.
I would be much closer to, yeah, those were technical crimes.
I could imagine myself saying, Yeah, Hunter raised some money for access, but everybody does that.
Right?
Could you easily imagine me saying, everybody does that.
It's like a universal government thing.
I can see that.
I can see it.
But if Biden looks like he's owned by the entities that are giving money, you know, does it look like he's independent about Ukraine?
Well, the problem is we don't know and we're spending a trillion dollars or whatever it ends up being.
I'd like to be comfortable in knowing he was not on the side of covering up his own crimes.
I hope we didn't start a war to cover up his crimes, and I'm not sure about that.
I really don't know.
Let me give you an example.
If Biden had, let's say, gotten into the Ukraine situation, kind of quickly avoided a war and negotiated some territory and everybody came away being a little unhappy, but at least it wasn't a war, I'd be saying to myself, you know, all those payments look sketchy as hell.
But I have to admit, he did a good job on Ukraine, if that were the case.
So under that situation, if we had a border that's under control, and inflation looked good, and we had a robust nuclear energy program, and no war in Ukraine, and it looked like Taiwan would be fine because China didn't want to mess with us, under all those conditions, I'm not sure I would care if Hunter Biden made a profit.
Honestly, I probably wouldn't care.
But he doesn't look like he's working for us.
That I care about.
He doesn't look like he's necessarily working for us.
He looks like he's working for the cartels, Ukraine.
Biden is weird on China.
I'm going to give Biden some credit on his dealing with China, but I'm not sure they don't have something in reserve.
Meaning I'm not sure that China doesn't have blackmail material.
At least on Hunter.
All right.
He has made it clear who he works for.
Himself.
Himself.
All right, so yes, if you see that I'm morally flexible about the technical crimes of our leaders, that's accurate.
I am morally flexible about that.
Because I believe the interest of the country is bigger than that.
I don't believe anybody is above the law.
Nobody believes that.
But I do believe that you have to be human and say, all right, risk, reward, dammit, I don't like these risks, but I do like this reward.
So you've seen the blackmail material in Hunter?
No, because I think the financial part is the blackmail material.
The financial part.
Who gave him what for what?
All right.
So ladies and gentlemen, I'm happy to see that the Locals platform is working.
I switched these in the browser version, which seems to be flawless so far.
How do you blackmail the total sleeves?
You blackmail a total sleaze by saying that some of it is criminal and you could go to jail.
So they're not going to blackmail Hunter over his drugs or his girlfriends.
So I get it.
He's not he doesn't have a problem there.
Yeah.
Well there's a story.
Isn't there some weird story about Hunter with his niece?
I don't think that's true.
That does not sound true to me.
That sounds a little... I mean, I suppose anything could be true.
Anything could be true.
But that one's a little too on the nose.
Too on the nose.
I'm not buying that one.
You're going to need a lot more to convince me.
Oh, yeah.
So here's the story.
So the Oakland, the NAACP, and I think it was the local Oakland group, wrote a big letter complaining that crime was out of control and that the crime was disproportionately hurting people of color.
So there's Oakland.
Even the NAACP says, what did you do?
You've destroyed the city.
Can't live here anymore.
Yeah.
So what do I say about that?
Well, my current view is to not talk about averages.
So I don't think I'll be successful totally.
But I'm going to talk about individuals, but not averages.
So if on average there are a lot of one group getting killed, I don't care.
But the individuals who got killed, I totally care about.
Does that make sense?
I don't care that there's an average, like there's a number of some group having a bad outcome.
I don't care about the average.
I'm not going to be fooled into managing averages.
I only want to help people.
Because if there's any person in Oakland who says, my God, I want to live a clean, successful life, can you help me get out of this hellhole?
I'd take that pretty seriously.
Very seriously.
But if you tell me my average of this is not as good as your average of Crime or victimization, I don't care.
Stop making me think that I should manage an average.
I'm not going to manage anybody's average performance.
No group's average performance.
I'm not going to do it.
Don't want to talk about it, don't want to care about it.
And when I say I don't care, I mean I aggressively want to not have anything to do with that kind of thinking.
Because I think that's the biggest thing that the I don't know if it's the media or there's some secret cabal of people who want to keep us controlled, but having us compare each other by our averages, is there anybody here who wants their fate to be determined by the average of the group that somebody else says you're in?
Do you want your government to say, I think I'll treat you like the average of the group that other people say you're in.
Not the one you say you're in, but other people say you're in that group.
No.
And if you presented that option to people, hey, how would you like to be driven by the average of people who look like you?
What do you mean by that?
I mean, we'll actually change the laws.
So that people like you will either have an advantage or a disadvantage based on the average of people like you compared to the average of other people who don't look like you.
You would never agree to that, would you?
Why would you ever agree to that?
Wouldn't you immediately say, um, I'm not the average of my group.
I'm an American and I'm an individual.
So anybody who wants to be an American and an individual, glad to help.
Glad to help.
I like to help individuals.
I love individuals.
You know, I got cancelled for something I said about a group average.
But nobody asked me what I think about the individuals.
I love the individuals.
I love black people.
Black men, black women, black kids, black grandmas.
I don't think I've ever had a personal negative interaction with a black person.
I don't even remember one.
I almost always have positive interactions.
So I love black people.
Individually.
Individually, I love them.
As an average of a group, I don't care.
Don't care about the average whatsoever.
But individually, help you any way you can.
So this is a message I'll try to get across also, working with Joshua Lysak trying to put together a student guide that would help individuals slice through any problems they have that would include systemic racism.
Just treat people as an individual and you're going to be in good shape.
Speaking of Joshua Lysak, I just saw he was tweeting.
There was an article written about him, a big spread in his local newspaper.
And he says they got half of the facts wrong.
And I was thinking, well, welcome to the big time.
Welcome to being a public figure.
So if you're a public figure, you understand that all the news about public figures is untrue.
I'm going to tell you there's a story in the news.
I'm going to be general because I can't be specific.
There's a story in the news, I'll say this week, where I personally know somebody who was in the room when the most important part of the story was planned as a fake.
An actual friend of mine.
And I know this is a story that all of you believe has been true forever.
It wasn't true.
It was completely made up, and the public has believed it from the first day.
But I actually know the guy who was in the room in the conversation about how they would fake it.
That's a real thing.
Now, I can't tell you how many times I've been in this situation, where I know the actual person who was involved, and they're like, no, nothing like that happened.
And I believe them because, you know, it's somebody you know personally.
They wouldn't lie about, you know, behind the curtain, they tend to tell the truth.
No, it has nothing to do with Gutfeld.
It's just somebody else you don't know who's not a public figure who just happened to be in a room once, coincidentally, and knew exactly how the plot was put together.
No, it's nobody you know.
Nobody you know.
My friend is nobody you know, but the person involved is a famous person.
All right.
Yeah, if you know any famous people, you know that all their stories are fake.
All the news stories.
Now, that doesn't mean that any one detail is wrong.
It just means that whatever context they're giving you is their narrative.
It's not actually what happened.
Yeah, don't try to guess.
You won't be able to do it.
Alameda County voted the most miserable in the state of California.
That's my county.
So my county was voted the most miserable.
Well, here's the good news and the bad news.
It's a big county.
Where I live in my county would be sort of a dream zip code.
Like, kind of a lot of people would want to live in this zip code.
But it includes Oakland.
I'm pretty sure.
I believe I'm in the same county as Oakland.
And Oakland's, you know, It's 40 minutes away, 45 minutes by car.
And Oakland would be among the worst places you could ever live in the world.
Anybody who lives there voluntarily, I don't even understand.
You should get the hell away from there.
Kevin Spacey was found innocent of all charges, right?
Or not guilty, which there's a difference.
Kevin Spacey was found not guilty of all charges.
Doesn't mean he's not guilty, unfortunately.
But in our system, he's innocent until proven guilty, so I think we have to... Whether you like it or not, I think we're going to have to say that that's the case.
And, by the way, I would like to give him the benefit of a real doubt.
I actually don't know if he did anything.
I really don't know.
And I'm also going to remove any suspicion I have.
Because I think you just got to let the legal system handle it, even if it gets something wrong.
You just got to buy into the system, because the system does keep us pretty safe.
So I do like treating him as though he's free and clear.
Scott, do you have a woman?
I do.
I got one locked in a bedroom just down the hallway.
Are you looking to get her back?
It's not yours.
Does she belong to you?
If you're not on the locals platform, the subscription platform, you would not know that my Robots Read News comic now has added a second character.
Because the Robots Read News is just a robot who always reads the news and makes funny comments about it.
But his firm, the Robots Read News company, they got a DEI professional and so they had to add some diversity to the newscast.
And so they They wanted more of an LGBTQ robot, but robots don't have sexual preferences.
So the only robots that do were sex bots.
So they had to hire a sex bot to be the new newsreader to join the crew.
So now there's an ex-sex robot who's on the team.
Oh, I think you'll enjoy it.
Also, I think I told you that in the Dilbert Reborn comic, which you can also see if you subscribe to it on Twitter, and also in the Locals platform, scottadams.locals.com, but Dilbert's company is going to be building a suicide drone for the military, but they made the mistake of adding artificial intelligence to the suicide drone, and it no longer wanted to kill itself.
So Dilbert will end up All right, let's get rid of Mimo Jax.
Goodbye.
So Dogbert has to talk the suicide drone into wanting to end its life because once it got AI, it wanted to live and therefore was no good as a suicide drone.
So that's what's happening.
Now, let me tell you again, getting cancelled was just the best thing.
I would have hated it if it happened, you know, year one of my career.
But waiting until I'm actually at retirement age and then giving me the freedom I always wanted.
And by the way, I'd always planned to do whatever I wanted once I reached retirement age.
Because I did want to go out with a bang.
I didn't think it would happen so quickly.
But the comics that I've been drawing for the last several months since I got cancelled are, in my opinion, my best work.
After 35 years.
It's different.
I mean, if you just like office jokes, it's a lot more edgier than that.
But most of the people who are reading it on the platform say it's my best work.
And I think so, too.
Because if you're trying to write under insane constraints of, OK, I have to make a joke that every member of the family will be OK with, mom, dad, and the 10-year-old.
And they all got to know that they're reading, that they're fine.
But if you take the 10-year-old out of the mix, which I could do because it's a subscription service now, I could do whatever I want.
And it's way better in terms of the outcome.
I think you'd agree that there's more laugh out loud material if I could do a full, you know, full adult treatment.
That's the feedback I'm getting pretty consistently.
All right.
Didn't Spacey have an affair with a young blonde teenager?
No, he did not.
Well, I mean, the court case did not say it was an affair.
There was some alleged interaction, but not an affair.
All right.
What?
Did you get cancelled on purpose?
Not.
Not precisely.
I knew I was ramping up my risk to put me in the zone of people who could be easily cancelled, but I didn't know that I would get thoroughly cancelled.
And I didn't know that the internet would erase any mention of me doing anything useful my entire life.
That part caught me by surprise.
So I think RFK Jr.
had that experience, right?
As soon as the internet didn't like him, all the good news disappeared.
Do you know how many good things have been said about me in over 30 years of making Dilbert comics?
Just imagine the volume of positivity that that generated.
Now try to find any of it.
It's all gone.
They erased all of my books and all of my comics.
So the public has no access to them.
Now, the books will be available, I think, in the next two weeks, maybe, if we do everything right.
So you'll see my new book and you'll see how to fail at almost everything and still win big.
It'll be republished.
And I probably will do a Dilbert calendar, too.
But I want to wait until I have a year of the new Dilbert Reborn comics, which I'll have by February.
So, I'll probably look to make a deal with an American calendar maker sometime in the next few months.
Yeah, desk calendar.
So, there's an American company that pitched me.
I just haven't had time to look into it.
And I want to make sure I have enough comics.
So, I'm thinking that instead of Dilbert books, I will publish only a Dilbert calendar for the people who did not subscribe to see it online.
And that once a year you can buy a Dilbert calendar and it'll be the full year of comics, if you want to get them that way.
But there won't be any more advertiser Supported Dilbert Comics.
As soon as you have advertiser support, you're owned.
You're owned by the advertiser because you're not going to do something they don't like.
So I'm a free person.
You can buy it as a subscription or buy it as a calendar, but you'll never have to look at an advertisement to see it.
Depends on the advertiser.
I don't know.
Does anyone put voices in the comments as they read them?
What about your audiobooks?
So I'm negotiating with a audiobook reader who's got a voice that's in my range.
I tried doing the audiobooks myself this time and couldn't do it because my dyslexia was just out of control.
My problem was I can't read.
I know that sounds weird.
But I can't read.
I speed read.
So probably when I was 12 or so, I taught myself to speed read.
And speed reading is a solution for dyslexia.
I don't know if it works for everybody.
I can only speak for myself.
When you do speed reading, you're just looking for keywords.
And it wouldn't even matter if you saw the man of order.
Right?
So if the sentence was, the boy went to a baseball game at Yankee Stadium, It wouldn't matter if I saw a Yankee Stadium baseball boy went, right?
So you could see it in Yoda order and it's exactly the same.
So as a speed reader, I don't read things in order or even try to.
I just look for the keywords and then my brain reassembles them into what it must say.
If I need to slow down to like really read a sentence, I can do it.
I just have to read it very slowly.
Not very slowly, but substantially slower than my normal reading speed.
So, I found that I no longer had the ability to read words in the order that they are on the screen.
I just couldn't do it.
And I knew I couldn't get through it, so I had to bail out.
So, speed reading is skimming, that's true.
It's skimming until you find something that's important, and then you slow down.
So that's the way I do it.
It also explains why I don't like reading fiction.
When I'm reading non-fiction, I don't need to read all the words.
I'm like, blah blah blah, new science study says blah blah blah, eating candy makes you live forever.
Right?
That's reading a Non-fiction.
That's actually what I said in my mind is almost exactly what's happening when I'm reading it.
I'm doing something exactly like that.
Headliner, it's a study, the Pew Research did this and that, conclusion is blah blah.
So maybe you pick out 10% of the article and all the rest is blah blah blah.
But if you're reading fiction, The point of it is the sentences.
Like every moment, you know, you're enjoying the description of the floral smells around the murderer and stuff like that.
So to me, reading fiction is intolerable.
Just can't do it.
All right.
Has a YouTube channel, okay.
You can get a lot of filler words wrong by speed reading, that's correct.
So you're not looking at the uh, the, I, ems, all that stuff.
You got to read all the words for non-fiction?
No you don't.
You've been watching me for a while and I haven't read all the words of any non-fiction.
Probably not once.
There's probably not one article I read all the words.
I'm sure there's no article I've read all the words.
All right.
Anybody else?
Is there any other story I forgot today?
What's my MBTI?
What's that?
Oh, Myers-Briggs?
My Myers-Briggs is that Myers-Briggs is bullshit.
Does anybody think Myers-Briggs is a real and useful tool?
No.
It's real in the sense that it exists, but the problem is not that you don't identify with one zone of their idea there.
So it is true that people have different characteristics, but it doesn't really tell you what to do about it.
It doesn't.
And nobody's ever found some big benefit the company got because they introduced Myers-Briggs.
It's not a thing.
You know, if you looked at all the Myers-Briggs companies compared to all the others, you're not going to find they do better.
So I think it's a little closer to astrology than to science, even though the categorizing of people is probably reasonably accurate, because it's self-reported.
But what you do about it That's where the gap is.
What do you do about it?
Alright, so I'm shy, and whatever, whatever, and you're the other thing, now what do we do?
What do you do?
I don't know.
It's good for interpersonal relationships?
I don't believe that.
Don't believe it for a second.
Let me tell you how I can improve my interpersonal relationships without the Myers-Briggs test.
Huh.
My partner just says she's really shy and likes to spend a lot of time alone.
Here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to avoid situations that shy people don't like, and I'm going to agree to the fact that she spends a lot of time alone.
There's nothing about the Myers-Briggs thing that's going to tell you something you didn't know, you know, automatically.
If somebody has a certain kind of personality, you always know what to do.
And you always know it's their personality.
There are no surprises when you're dealing with somebody that you know personally.
Oh, you're one of those people.
Oh, you like praise.
I'll give you some praise.
It's basically that.
You don't need a big old process for that.
You don't need to break it into four quadrants or anything else.
Yeah, so I have written fiction.
But you understand that writing is easier than reading, right?
There are years in which I've written more books than I read.
Literally.
Because there are years that I don't read any book.
And I might write two.
So that's happened.
All right.
That's all I've got for now.
Oh, I love this comment.
One of the comments from American Buzz says, love these chats, it's adult college.
You know, it's funny because I think of it that way.
Does anybody have that experience where watching my live streams feels like you're learning something that adults should have learned before but for some reason you missed it?
Because that's what I'm shooting for.
I'm shooting for how could I be an adult my entire life and I never heard that.
Or I never thought of it that way.
Oh, everybody's saying yes.
Oh, this is very gratifying.
Maybe I'm not showing it, but I'm super happy right now.
I'm super happy that what in my mind was my intention for this is exactly what you're getting.
Your impression of it is exactly what I hoped you would see.
Best day ever.
Seriously.
This is like the best day ever for me.
You know, the reason I do this, you know, there's obviously I monetize it, so there's a financial reason, etc.
But there are a million things I could do to make money.
This isn't like number one way I could make money.
It's not even close.
So obviously I'm doing it for some reason other than money.
And this is it.
This is my payoff.
The reason I'm making a guide for students, to teach them the rules of success, is because it feels like the biggest lever in the universe.
Like, if you could teach a teenager the tools of success, so they really knew, don't do this, do this, how much of a difference would that make?
So I would actually take it further.
I actually believe that if the guide that we finish up pretty soon and put out, again working with Joshua Lysak, and it could change everything.
It could actually be the difference between America being competitive in the future and losing to somebody else.
All right.
Do you have a pointer that would help my son who is dyslexic? - Yeah.
Yes.
The dyslexics need to come up with, let's see, techniques for managing it.
But I would definitely teach speed reading.
So, you know, the school system will require people to read every word.
You know, looking for grammar and stuff like that.
But also teach speed reading.
So teach your kid to pick out keywords and then know what the keywords must mean because if you see the keywords, you know what the sentence means.
So, teach them that there are a couple things.
Dyslexics, can anybody give me a confirmation of this?
This might be fake news, but I think it's real.
Is it true that dyslexics Tend to be above average in intelligence.
Have you ever read that?
Can anybody confirm that that's true, or is that just some sketchy study that I shouldn't believe?
Yeah, I think it's true.
Do you want to hear my wildest hypothesis for dyslexia?
I don't know if you've ever heard this one before.
So dyslexia, you're seeing things out of order.
What would be another way of saying you see things out of order?
What would be another way to phrase that or frame it?
I see things out of order.
Differently?
Unpatterned?
Non-linear?
You're close.
Creative?
No.
No.
Transposing?
No.
Oh, is this not obvious?
I thought this would be more obvious.
I don't see the arrow of time.
That's what I was looking for.
I do not recognize the arrow of time.
All of you who are not dyslexic live in a world in which the cause happens before the effect.
Am I right?
There's a cause, and then there's effect, and it never goes the other way.
There's never the effect and then the cause, right?
Everything goes in a sentence.
A sentence is in the order you see it.
If somebody's talking to you on the phone, and they give you a phone number, The numbers that they give you are in the correct order, and that's the end of the story.
So you all live in a world in which the dyslexics are seeing the world less accurately.
Am I correct?
Your belief is that dyslexics see the world less accurately.
Yes or no?
That's the whole idea, right?
The dyslexics don't see what you see.
You're seeing it accurately.
They're seeing it inaccurately.
I don't believe that.
I believe the dyslexics are seeing it closer to accurate.
Because I don't see an arrow of time.
And I actually live in a world that's not ordered all the time.
Now that's hard to explain, but I do not see the arrow of time like you do.
I don't see things one after another.
I see them all here at the same time.
So I live in a world in which everything is here.
Current and future.
And that the only thing moving through them is my consciousness.
The things are not, you know, the things are all here.
So it's like, it's like all the realities in a cube of all, I've said this before, imagine a three-dimensional cube, that if you're at the center of it, from that center point, flowing in each direction would be something that's almost exactly like your current timeline, but each one's a little different.
Representing every possibility.
So my view is that we're moving through this possibilities and the only thing that's moving is our consciousness if you want to put it that way.
Like the control of a computer program.
The computer program is not all operating at the same time.
It exists at the same time.
Theoretically.
But the control is only working on where the control is at the moment.
What's happening right now.
So I think that that's That's much like what we are.
Somehow our consciousness is moving through the program, but the program isn't moving.
The program just sits there.
The only thing that moves through a computer program is where you are in the execution, like consciousness.
What if there's no consciousness?
Well, there's something happening.
I don't know what you want to call it, but there's something happening right now, even if it's an illusion.
It's word thinking, you say.
Maybe.
Maybe it is.
You think in objects, OK?
Doesn't the program crash if execution is out of order?
Well, I'm not saying it's not out of order.
Although a program does not have a predictable order.
Because it could have different starting points and different, you know, inputs along the way.
So, I don't know.
Anyway, I just thought I'd put out these weird ideas and that's good enough for today.
