Episode 2218 Scott Adams: I Tell You How To Use The Designated Liars To Deduce What Is True
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Politics, Mushrooms Depression, Unemployment, Mitch McConnell, Aging Politicians, Designated Liars List, Phil Bump, Placebo Effect, Solar Power Cost, Nuclear Power Cost, Plastic Recycling, Jamie Raskin, Jared Kushner, Casual News Consumers, Vivek Ramaswamy, TMZ, Climate Change, RFK Jr., 85,000 Missing Kids, President Biden, Kids In Cages, Military Discrimination, Ukraine Military Advance, Double Slit Experiment, Collapsing Reality, Joe Biggs 17 years, Jocko Willink, 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, now streaming to you live all over the world through YouTube and through X Live on X at the moment.
And of course, my beloved locals community.
We get to see the good stuff.
Oh, you wouldn't believe what they heard before you came on.
Wow.
But if you'd like to take this experience up to levels that nobody dreamed were possible, including two whiteboard presentations.
Two!
Two.
Wait for that.
All you need is a cup or mug or a glass of tankard chalice of stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure, the dopamine hit of the day, the thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
What happens now?
Go.
So good, so good.
Today's episode is brought to you by the best book in the world.
It's called Reframe Your Brain.
And it might actually be the best book in the world.
I say that because people say, come on, come on.
No, I don't mean religious books.
Religious books are their own category.
But if you want a book that will almost certainly change your life in some positive way, probably a number of ways, Apparently people are having their lives changed, even now.
It's available, even though Amazon is making it as hard as possible.
Let me ask you this.
Of all the books on Amazon, you can imagine there are tens of millions of books.
How many of those books, if you went to the page and then tried to click on it to buy it, how many of those would Amazon not let you buy?
I don't know if there are any others, but mine's pretty hard to get.
So the hardcover got listed, but it got listed as not yet available.
But if you go to the hardcover page, it doesn't show the softcover option.
So if you thought you were buying a book, and you're like, oh, hardcover's there, you'd see it's not available, and then you wouldn't see that you could buy the softcover that's been available for a couple weeks.
We live in a zero-trust environment.
Under normal conditions, I would say to myself, there's probably a little technical problem.
We'll get that worked out.
But how many times have I told you there's a technical problem?
Not the first one.
So in a zero-trust environment, I'm going to assume guilt until proven innocent.
Not that it's true, but I wouldn't assume it's an accident at this point.
So if you can buy that book, if you can find a way to actually purchase it, You'll be ahead of the game.
All right, here's some updates.
Yet another trial of using mushrooms for depression.
It turns out that the magic mushrooms made a huge difference.
So basically, every time they study it, I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but 100% of the times they study depression and mushrooms, there's a big improvement.
There's something really big, big, big that's coming down the pike.
And I don't know what it's going to do.
Remember, I always remind you that I told you that when Trump rose in 2015, 2016, I told you it was going to change more than politics.
It would change the way you saw reality itself.
Well, if you thought that was a change, Wait till you try mushrooms for your depression.
Talk about a change in reality.
So toward the end of today's show, I'm going to blow your minds.
Like your brain is just going to come off.
And almost certainly, almost certainly, you're going to say, what?
So wait for that.
That's the whiteboard presentation.
All right.
I saw an article that apparently a lot of employees are pretending they have AI knowledge, because their boss doesn't know one way or the other, so that they can feel like they're the valuable employees.
And I thought to myself, well, there's a whole week of Dilbert Reborn comics, which are available by subscription only on Twitter and on the Locals platform.
ScottAdams.Locals.com.
Did you see that coming?
You knew that people were going to pretend that they knew AI without knowing AI.
You knew that was going to happen.
That's a WALL-E thing.
Well, unemployment is inching up from 3.5 to 3.8.
Let's pretend we can measure that.
Yeah, let's pretend that we can measure it in a meaningful and accurate way such that the change between 3.5 and 3.8 is meaningful.
Probably not.
Probably not.
But if the numbers that are official make it look like inflation is inching up, which is hard to imagine, why would it be going up?
Just too much money supply?
I don't know.
Seems like it should be going down, but that would be, I would guess, one of the most important predictors of the next election.
Should it be a fair and free election?
I would say, I would think inflation is the biggest number that would change people's vote.
What do you say?
If everything else were the same, and inflation looked like it was inching up on election day, I think that's game over.
At least in terms of the public.
The voting is a separate question.
Alright, here's my opinion on Mitch McConnell, and you all know he's had health problems and he's been freezing up.
Actually, he just goes blank like he can't talk in public.
It's happened a few times.
We all feel bad for him.
I don't want to mock somebody for age or infirmity, so I'm going to mock other people instead.
I think you can ignore everything Republicans say on any topic.
As long as they let that guy keep his job.
Now you could say to me, but the other Republicans have no say over whether he retires.
Sure they do.
Of course they do.
If they all said you've got to retire, he'd retire.
Because it would just be too embarrassing not to.
They could just not take his calls, just ignore his office.
They could treat him like he's not there.
They could get him out in a day.
I'm sure they have their reasons, but if you're not going to tell me the reasons, I'm not going to listen to you about anything.
Right?
You have no credibility if the leader of your party is incapacitated and you're just letting it happen.
Why?
Because Biden is also incapacitated, so that's okay?
Or Schumer's close to it?
No, Schumer's doing fine.
Yeah.
How can you make fun of the fact that Democrats keep Fetterman?
You can't.
How can you make fun of Biden's declining cognitive ability?
You can't.
Not if you're trying to be a serious person.
So if you want to be a serious person, they all have to go.
You know, Feinstein's got to go, but McConnell's got to go at the same time.
So Republicans, could you pull it together just a little bit?
I mean, this is just free money you're sitting on the table.
I realize it's awkward and it's uncomfortable.
It's not the thing you want to be known for.
But you gotta do it.
You gotta do it.
There's nobody in the world who thinks this is right.
Nobody.
Zero people think this is okay.
And you can't do this?
The simplest fucking thing you could ever do in your life?
You can't do this?
Just help a guy out?
Help him retire with a little bit of dignity, maybe?
Crazy.
Yeah, just ignore everything Republicans say from now on.
If you can't get that right.
All right.
Here's a service I'm thinking seriously of doing.
You've seen me give my description of how to know if the news is credible.
For example, I won't go through the whole thing, but I did a whole list of what is a credible story versus a non-credible story.
And one of them, just to give you an example, is if the only source is an anonymous source, and it's only being reported by the part of the media that hates the person who's being narked on, that's never true.
It's just never true.
And then you could rate the other things for how often they're true.
And then you'd have a good little guide to look at the news.
But there's another thing I want to add, and I'm just starting to build the list.
It would be the list of what I call the designated liars.
Now this is a little tricky because there's some nuance to it.
If you miss the nuance, then the beauty of the idea disappears.
So I'm not talking about people who lie.
In a moment, you're going to suggest people who are simple liars.
That's not what this is about.
We're not talking about simply lying, because that would be a lot of politicians.
I'm talking about designated liars.
If you miss the designated part, that would be like missing the difference between climate change as a hoax versus the climate agenda as a hoax.
If you miss that designated word, which you will, not all of you, but somebody on YouTube is going to say, but other people lie.
You know they're going to do that.
Whoever does that is an NPC.
All right?
So it's not about liars.
It's not about liars.
It's about designated liars.
And what I mean by that is there's a group of Democrats.
Now, you could make an argument that it happens on the right.
We'll talk about that as well.
But on the left, if you see any of these people, Be the chief character in a story.
Now, the chief character would be somebody who wrote the big article that everybody's talking about, or somebody who's always on the news talking about it.
If you see Phil Bump of the Washington Post making a claim that other people are saying, hmm, I'm not so sure that's true.
Phil Bump is an absolute signal that it's a fake story.
He's almost synonymous with fake news.
Now, He would deny that of course.
And he denied it quite a bit because he's under fire in the news.
I saw Jonathan Turley and Miranda Devine.
Is it Devine or Devine?
Devine?
Miranda Devine or Devine?
Somebody fact check me.
I'll say it correctly when you do.
Vine, Devine.
Okay, it's Devine.
So Miranda Devine has an article and basically it's just mocking Phil Bump for being a ridiculous character.
Now, in terms of full disclosure, Phil Bump does work for the Washington Post, which in the Dilbert Reborn comic is where Ratbert works as a writer.
Ratbert, I guess I should tell you, is current incarnation as a writer for the Washington Poop.
So in the Dilbert Reborn comic, you can only see it by subscription, it's the Washington Poop.
And Ratbert basically plays Phil Bump.
No, I don't use the name, but in your mind if you see it, just tell yourself it's Phil Bump and it's funnier.
Alright, so Phil Bump is one of my mascots, so full disclosure.
He's one of the people who comes after me in public.
And he was dancing on my grave when I got cancelled, primarily by his newspaper, which started the rest of the newspapers.
So when the Washington Post cancelled me, that allowed everybody else to do it at the same time.
So just know that I'm not objective, but Phil Bump's a good signal for fake news.
The other ones you know, Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Jamie Raskin, Jerry Nadler, Dan Goldman, Blumenthal, Brandon, Clapper.
Now, they're the ones that I call the designated liars.
Here are the names that are not on the list.
Corinne Jean-Pierre.
Do you understand why she's not on the list?
Because she's not a signal of fake news.
She's somebody who lies and spins everything all the time.
But she'll spin a positive, a thing that's real.
She'll spin a thing that's not real.
You can't really tell.
So she's not a signal because she's just out there spinning all the time.
The other people that are not a signal would be leadership.
So Schumer, Biden, Pelosi, and Harris.
Because they're going to talk about everything all the time because they're in leadership.
So if you see them saying something that's true or not true, it's not really a signal.
They're just talking about everything all the time.
Same as John, John, uh, Pierre, whatever.
Corinne, John Pierre.
So I don't consider them designated liars.
They would just be ordinary politicians who don't always tell the truth and spin a lot.
Now the Republicans have a lot of those.
Republicans have people who are wrong.
You know, they believe things that are not true.
They have people who are under-informed.
Let's say not banning TikTok, for example.
Might not understand it, so they might have a bad opinion there.
There are people who maybe just have different philosophies.
There are people who maybe they know they're bending or spinning or something.
And probably there's some people who just know they're lying on the Republican side.
But here's what's different.
There is not an identifiable squad of liars on the right that I'm aware of.
If I'm missing it because I have some bias, somebody should suggest it to me.
Now, if you say to me, but Scott, here's somebody who lied.
Again, it's not about lying.
They're all going to be lying sooner or later, except for Thomas Massey.
I have to throw Thomas Massey in there every time I call Congress liars, because he's so obviously not one that it just...
I just feel shitty when I don't.
Yeah, Rand Paul's not a liar.
There are others too, right?
There are others that I do trust are not lying.
But Republicans have a different set of credibility problems.
I don't think they have designated liars.
But if they do, well, so somebody's saying, what about Crenshaw on Ukraine?
That doesn't seem to me like a designated liar.
That seems like somebody who has an opinion you don't have.
Because Crenshaw is not identifiable with the guy you stick forward to say the things that are never true.
He's just somebody who disagrees with you deeply on a big issue.
And I probably disagree with him as well but that doesn't make him a liar and it certainly doesn't make him a designated liar.
Adam Kinzinger, there's something going on with Adam Kinzinger.
That has more to do with the Ukraine war.
I don't see Adam Kinzinger as sort of the designated liar.
I think he's, honestly, it looks like he has some mental difficulties, is how it projects.
Now, I don't know that.
I'm not a doctor.
But when I see Adam Kinzinger, I don't see mental health.
He doesn't display mental health in the way that I normally would recognize it.
So if you're displaying something that looks like maybe there's something you're working on on your own, that's just its own category.
All right.
So would that be helpful?
Tell me the truth.
If you could, for a moment, be unbiased.
I know it's impossible.
Would this be useful?
If you were teaching somebody how to look at the news, would it be useful to have a list of these 10 people are designated liars?
You know they're lying.
That's the only reason they're on TV.
That would be useful, right?
Yeah.
All right.
Here's some fake science.
Alright, here's the thing, I believe I'm going to explain this to you correctly, but if later you say to me, Scott, you got that story completely wrong, well, I'll change it.
I'll change my mind.
But I'm going to tell you what I think I know.
No.
All right?
So you know what a placebo is, right?
You're all smart, educated people.
You know that a placebo is a fake pill that if you have a pill that you think will be real and will solve some problem, then you give somebody the fake pill and you see how they do, you compare it to the real drug.
Now, if the real drug improves people's condition more than the placebo, Then you're likely to get improved if there are no side effects, or if there are minimal side effects.
Now, this largely proves, wouldn't you say, because whenever they do this study, you always get this effect.
The people who take the fake pill, very predictably, not 100% of the time, but predictably, they'll have a substantial kind of a benefit.
So, would you agree That the placebo effect is one of the most studied and guaranteed to be real effects you've ever seen in science.
How many would say that?
That's guaranteed to be real, because I don't think anything's been studied this much.
Has anything ever been studied as much as this?
Because every time they do a study, this shows up.
Like, you don't even have to be looking for it, and it's everywhere.
I mean, the placebo effect is just everywhere.
So it's real.
In the comments, can you at least acknowledge that the placebo effect is real so that I can go on to my next point?
It's real, right?
Everybody knows?
It's totally real?
Yeah, totally real.
All right.
Maybe not.
Maybe not.
Do you know what they don't study?
Because they don't have to.
What they don't study is somebody who took no pill at all.
Do you know what would happen if they did?
Suppose every test was placebo in one group, real drug in another group, and then the thing that they don't study, but what if they did?
No pill at all, and you don't even know you're in the study.
So they'd have to not even know they're in the study.
What do you think that would be?
Just take a guess.
What do you think the don't do anything and you're not even in this study would look like?
That's right.
The people who did absolutely nothing, they improve about the same as the placebo.
Do you know what that means?
It means everything you've ever heard about the placebo was bullshit.
It's always been bullshit.
It was easy to prove.
Easy to prove.
And for your entire life, the people that you trust, the scientists, told you they did some science, And then they told you they used their statistical genius to prove that the thing called the placebo effect is a real thing.
Now I'm seeing somebody say this is incorrect.
So I'm open to correction.
Because I'm not completely sure this is true.
I'll tell you that, you know, it's just something I ran across on the internet recently.
But as soon as I saw it, I thought to myself, well, I'm pretty sure they don't study the person who wasn't in the study.
I'm pretty sure that's not a normal thing.
And I do know that in the normal course of things, most people improve if you do nothing.
Or at least they say they improve.
Maybe they just got used to it.
So they said they improved.
Who knows?
Some of us might be some of that.
But I don't know.
I'm open for fact-checking.
I'm open for fact-checking.
But remember, we live in a zero-trust environment where science is mostly bullshit.
Mostly.
The vast majority of the things you call science are bullshit.
And apparently always have been.
From the so-called nutrition triangle.
That was bullshit from day one.
It was never even attempted to be true.
But if the placebo effect isn't real, what can you believe?
Want to see another one?
Do you think I could do this again?
Let's see.
You probably know that RFK Jr.
says that solar might be a good green technology, but it's not economical if you include all of the other costs.
You know, because everything has, you know, closed down costs, and maybe social costs, and then there's how long it takes to get approval, and all that stuff.
Now, also with solar power, People will say, hey, you forgot to include the recycling costs.
You know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Right?
So let me ask you the question.
You all watch the news.
You know, this is the most informed group I've ever seen.
Literally, it's the most informed group of news watchers.
So you all watch the news.
And you all know that climate change, no matter what you think of the reality of it, you would agree it's Maybe the biggest issue outside of Ukraine, I guess.
Maybe the biggest issue, right?
But at least you're recycling your plastic, right?
Is everybody recycling their plastic?
At least trying to help?
As Michael Schellenberger informed you recently, do you know that the plastic recycling has never been real?
It's never been real.
They don't recycle the plastic that you separate.
They throw it in the garbage and they ship it to Asia and it ends up in the ocean and your water supply.
And always has.
And always has.
Recycling isn't real.
Plastic.
I think maybe metal cans is real.
Maybe cardboard is real.
I don't know.
But plastic recycling Has never been real.
How many of you knew that?
How many of you knew that plastic recycling was never real?
A lot of you did.
How many Democrats do you think know that?
Not so many.
Not so many.
Alright.
So what is the answer?
You all watched the news.
So the most important question, I would say, see if you agree with me, the most important question about climate change in terms of what we're going to do about it, because even if you think there's no risk, you need more energy, right?
So the people who don't believe in climate change as a risk, the ones who do believe it, You all need more energy.
So the biggest question is, which one's more economical?
So tell me, which one's more economical?
Solar or nuclear?
And I'm going to tell you the real answer after you tell me your answers.
There's an absolute real answer.
I can give you complete certainty on this question.
A lot of people say nuclear.
A lot of people say nuclear.
Both, that's an interesting answer.
Both make sense from a you-need-all-the-energy-you-can-get perspective.
But one of them is going to be better.
Alright, do you want the absolute, guaranteed, correct answer?
Nobody knows.
Are you kidding me?
You think somebody knows the answer to this question?
No, this is completely unknowable.
Now here we happen to be in my domain of expertise.
You know, I know it doesn't seem like it, but I do have many years of corporate experience trying to analyze what costs more, both initially and also in the long run.
Because it's not your initial cost, it's, you know, you have to put in decommissioning and everything else there.
So, I can guarantee you that the level of complexity involved in nuclear, as well as solar, guarantees that nobody knows the answer.
It's a guarantee.
Here's what else they don't know.
What would be the economics if, let's say, you got a capable president, let's say a Vivek Ramaswamy, and he said, hey, this nuclear stuff would be good if you could make it easier to build and easier to get approved.
So at the moment, it's nearly impossible to get a nuclear power plant built because of all the environmentalists and blah, blah, blah.
But could you imagine That somebody who is smart and a president could say, hey, you states don't get a vote.
Because this is too close to the homeland security.
You can't really have a country that has a national defense unless you're also a strong economy.
So you need your basics, your energy production.
That's the most basic thing.
You gotta get your energy production and then maybe transportation would be next.
But if you don't get your energy production right, you might as well disband your army.
Your army's useless if you don't have energy and you don't have a good economy to equip them, right?
So somebody like Vivek could make the argument that nuclear energy is not just a choice of which energy to use, but it's a requirement for the sustainability of the United States, defensively and in every other way, that we have a robust, efficient nuclear energy Game.
Now, could the federal government just say, hey, environmentalists, go away?
And, hey, Democrats, it doesn't matter what you want, because it's national security.
So I'm going to get rid of all the little state and local ordinances, and I'm going to say there's just one set of federal approvals, and they won't be that hard.
They'll be optimized.
So you can get your approval, and I'm just gonna say you states, you just don't get a vote in this, because you're driving the country into ruin.
And that's a defense problem.
So could that happen?
I don't know.
But you don't either.
That's my point.
My point is, if you don't know, could Vivek do that?
Or could Trump do that?
He didn't do it the first time, so I suspect he can't.
But I think Vivek could do it, because Do you know what it would take to remove all of those regulations?
The minimum it would take for a president to do that?
They would have to understand the topic.
How many people who have ever run for that office, a president, do you think you could introduce to the topic of nuclear regulation and have them like do a deep dive And then come out with a usable opinion, a usable opinion of which things could be tweaked and modified, and who's lying to them about what you can't change.
We've only had one candidate who was capable.
Well, Jimmy Carter, I guess.
But yeah, Jimmy Carter, right.
But at the moment, we have one candidate I think has that capability.
And I happen to think we have some smart candidates, right?
RFK Jr., super smart.
Trump, I believe, is super smart within his domain.
But you haven't seen a Vivek before.
Vivek is the one person who's running for president in the longest time, who you could say, can you look at this mess and try to untangle this?
You don't have to be the biggest expert in each part of it, but at least you can understand the landscape.
I don't think anybody else can even see the landscape.
It's just way too complicated.
So, if you don't know the political part, you also don't know the base economics.
If you don't know that we could approve, for example, you could approve modular designs, and then let people build as many as they want, so long as it's the same design.
So there's a whole bunch of things you could do to lower the price or cost of nuclear.
You can store the waste on site, Which is now the normal way to do it.
So you don't have the transportation, you don't need a different facility, you just keep it on site.
Put it in a little barrel every once in a while.
So the economics of waste is pretty low at this point.
The risk of a meltdown, which is what causes you to be uninsurable, if we build the newer models, they've never had a meltdown.
If we did a Generation 3, or we're getting close to Generation 4, those have never had a meltdown.
Generation 4 can't have one.
It's built so the design itself is a failure that causes it to just stop.
The current designs, including 3, you have to keep the energy going.
If the energy is lost, you could get a meltdown.
So you don't build something like Fukushima, where you put your backup generators below the ocean line.
It was below sea level.
They actually put their backup generators below sea level in a tsunami zone.
Now, is that a problem with nuclear power?
Would you say, and therefore nuclear power is dangerous?
I mean, that's a pretty big leap.
How about we just don't put our backup generators underwater?
That would be like a start.
But, you know, that's not the only problem.
If you get to Generation 4, you don't need the power at all.
It just stops working when the other electricity goes off.
Yeah, it's a dumb design.
Snoopy Boob says, wow, Scott's a nuclear scientist.
Which part of this did I need to be a nuclear scientist for?
Was there something I forgot I said that was sort of science-y?
All right.
Jamie Raskin.
You recognize him from the people who signal fake news.
He wants to investigate Jared Kushner's Saudi investments.
Now, that's a really good play from the Democrats.
In a political sense, it's good.
And here's why it's good.
The general public can't tell the difference between a publicly announced investment in an investment fund that is publicly investing in things with well-known public management.
Compared to literally a money-washing slash bribery influence scheme with lots of shell corporations run by Hunter Biden.
The public isn't going to know the difference.
To them it's going to look like two sketchy things.
Is it financial?
Yes.
Okay, so there's money involved and it's like a politician?
Yes.
But is it a politician who ran for office?
No.
Jared didn't run for office and neither did Hunter.
Oh, so it's similar, you're saying.
Oh, so if Jared is innocent, well, therefore, logically, Hunter did nothing wrong.
So it's a brilliant play because most of the public doesn't know anything that's going on with either story.
But if you tune in and you're a casual viewer, and somebody says, sure, they're going after Hunter, but look what Jarrah did, and you're a casual consumer of the news, that sounds like a pretty good point, doesn't it?
Oh, they're both doing it.
Okay.
I guess I can forget about that as a topic, because everybody does it.
Everybody's doing it.
No, not everybody is setting up his shell corporations and lying about it.
Jared did an announcement.
He did a press release.
If you do a press release about what you're doing, and the investments presumably will be known at some point, because there could be big ones.
I don't know.
If you say you're not comfortable with Jared, let's say, capitalizing on his connections he made during office, I get that.
But what is better than doing it transparently?
And are we better off or worse off if Saudi Arabia and Jared Kushner have a close relationship?
Are we better off or worse off?
He was the architect of the Abraham Accords.
We're 100% better off.
It's not even close.
You want the Saudis to have a good working relationship with some prominent Americans so that we work better with them.
There's a reason the Saudi You know, it has played well with the Trump administration, and now Jared, because they played well with them.
That's how it works.
And we'll need them in the future.
So I don't mind that we have connections with them, as long as it's all public.
Did I talk about this?
Vivek dismantling Harvey Levin on TMZ and his co-host, whose name I can't remember, Charles?
Charles, I think.
Now, I'm not going to replay it for you or describe it.
I'll just tell you how he did it.
Here's how most Republicans have argued about climate change and what happens.
Here's most Republicans.
Climate change isn't even real.
Well, are you denying all of science because you're an idiot?
Well, yesterday it was cold.
Okay, you know that temperature and climate are really not the same.
Anecdotally, that doesn't really prove anything.
It snowed yesterday.
Okay, well, I don't even feel like we're talking about the same thing.
It's cold.
And then the Democrats declare that the Republican, whoever it is, is a big old dope who doesn't believe in science.
Right?
That's the way it goes every time.
Now, enter Vivek.
It took him about one minute to demonstrate that everything those two knew, Harvey and Charles, knew about climate change was way less than Vivek knew.
Okay, that was his starting point.
He very clearly told them that he was more well-read and understood the topic at a more detailed level.
Next thing he did right Is he debunk their, you know, climate hoax thing and said, no, the agenda, that what we're doing about it part is the hoax.
In other words, we're not doing the right stuff.
I'm not, I'm not arguing whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
I am instead arguing that you have not included all of the costs and the benefits in your analysis.
And that's when he was done.
When he started to tell them, you've simply not included enough in your analysis.
You have to look at the number of people dying.
You have to look at how well we remediate.
You have to look at how many people die from cold, which is way more than the ones who die from warmth.
And once you've included all of those things, Your best analysis for keeping people alive would be to go hard with fossil fuels today because that's what keeps people alive today.
But also work hard to get your nuclear and all forms of energy up so that you can transition because you don't want to pollute.
Now Vivek doesn't want to pollute.
So you don't have to ask him this question because it's obvious.
Would you rather have a new nuclear power plant Or more coal?
You don't have to ask him that.
Of course he wants a nuclear power plant.
He says it directly.
So once Vivek showed that the difference between their analyses was that he had included the value of human life in his.
I'm not making this up.
Vivek showed that he was including the value of human life, literally keeping people alive, and that as bad as the pollution is from fossil fuels, it is how you keep them alive.
And it's not even close.
If you take people's energy away, things don't work out at all.
So the funny thing about it, if you get a chance to look at it, you could just Google Look for Vivek and TMZ, it'll pop right up.
You have to watch the reactions, the physical reactions of the two hosts, Harvey and Charles, and they start getting animated, and they're triggered into cognitive dissonance.
Because I'll tell you what nobody expects to lose.
If you're Harvey and Charles, these are well-informed Public hosts.
You know, these are high-functioning people who pay attention to the news.
It's their business, right?
So, when they get into a conversation about climate change, they expect to be on top of the mountain and just pissing on the ants that are running below, because that's how it's supposed to work.
Because the only people they've ever talked to who disagreed with them were idiots.
If I'm being honest, they've only talked to idiots.
Because the idiot view is, oh, it snowed today, so no climate change.
You're not going to win with that.
But as soon as Vivek came in and said, you know, why don't you count keeping people alive?
How about that as your best metric?
Keeping people alive.
And that just shut them down.
It just made them look like idiots.
Because what was their argument for, well, I guess I would rather kill ten times as many people, but, you know, I really like solar.
There's nothing there.
Once you've made the case that more people will clearly die with the current set of policies, then all they have to do is, they don't even know how to respond to that.
So they were both at deep cognitive dissonance, and it was wonderful.
So if you'd like to see what cognitive dissonance looks like, That's a real good example.
You have to watch them flip out.
They started just spewing things and trying to talk over each other and they fell apart.
So it was wonderful.
Alright.
I saw this joke from WokasaurusRex on X. He says, He says, new game.
All you have to do is add the quote, I've never seen anything like it, to any statement about anything to prove your point in how bad climate change is affecting the world.
You don't need any evidence.
The phrase itself.
So he gives an example.
It rained today.
I've never seen anything like it.
And I laugh for 10 minutes, because that's exactly what the news coverage is.
It's like, the wind was very strong.
We've never seen anything like it.
The five late show hosts, minus the good one, Greg Gutfeld.
If you saw the podcast with the five of them, they're like, you're writing so hard.
Never seen anything like it.
Anyway, to me that was funny.
RFK Jr.
has these stats, which, if these are true, I don't know what to say about how Biden could even be polling anywhere near equal.
But this is what RFK Jr.
says about his own party, right?
President Biden justified his open border policy, so even RFK Jr.
calls it an open border.
Remember, he's a Democrat.
He was there.
He did a little documentary.
It's an open border.
Because it's an open border.
Let me say that again.
Do you know why RFK Jr.
calls it an open border?
Because he's not a fucking liar.
That's why.
Right?
He's not a liar.
So he couldn't not call it that because that's obviously what it is.
So all credit to him for bringing some truth to the topic.
But look at these numbers.
He says the Trump era border patrol had 2,600, quote, children in cages, as they like to say, or his critics like to say.
And RFK Jr.
says today there are 12,000 children in cages.
Plus, and here's the part that I can't even process, 85,000 children have disappeared.
Now, disappeared means we just don't know where they went.
It doesn't mean that something bad happened to them, necessarily.
But out of 85,000 missing children, which a lot of them I assume were unaccompanied minors, and were probably trafficked intentionally, I don't know what percentage of the 85,000 were being trafficked and abused, but it's not zero.
I don't know what it is, but it's going to be some shocking percentage.
And is it fair to say that that makes Biden the biggest child trafficker in the world?
Because it's entirely his decision whether this happens or not.
He's the only one who decides whether this is going to happen.
Nobody else.
Just one guy.
And that one guy apparently is responsible for 12,000 children in cages and 85,000 missing, of which What would be a small guess?
20,000 of them are sexually abused and still are at this minute.
What's your guess?
It's probably something in that range.
This is the deepest level of evil that I've seen in America since slavery or Jim Crow or something.
Right?
I mean, this is sort of epic evil.
This is evil on a scale that, honestly, I had no idea.
I had no idea it was that big.
I knew it was hard to track people once they got in, but 85,000 kids that we don't have a good idea even where they are?
That is not good dad action.
Right?
You need a dad.
You're going to need somebody in that office Who cares about children.
Now the good news is a number of candidates fit that fit that description.
But wow.
All right.
Vivek, who makes news so well.
Vivek is the best earned media guy of all time.
Trump got tons of earned media, but often they were just, you know, criticizing him.
So his earned media was working against him as much as it was for him.
Vivek's is, you know, is more of a 60-40.
Like it's overwhelmingly positive, but of course critics will try to turn it into something it isn't.
But here's something he said today, another perfect thing to highlight.
He says, under General C.Q.
Brown's leadership, the Air Force is trying to reduce white male pilots from 86% of flyers down to 43% amidst a major recruiting crisis.
So there's a recruiting crisis.
Can't get enough people.
But they're going to make it much, much harder to get good people by discriminating against, I assume, straight white males.
I assume if you're gay and a white male, maybe you're still good.
But if you're a straight white male, they're going to tell you, pretty much, we're looking for somebody else.
Now, why would a straight white male join the military?
If you were a straight white male and one of your options was to join the military, I would advise against it.
Now, I typically would not advise against joining the military, even though it's clearly a risky proposition by its nature.
And I don't usually advise people to take risky actions.
But at least there's a payoff, right?
At least you get benefits and you learn a skill maybe.
There's a lot to gain.
So, you know, it's a personal decision.
But at this point, I think I will weigh in and say if you're a straight white male, the military just said you're not going to do well.
So you should probably look for a different plan.
So I can't recommend the U.S.
military to a straight white male under the current conditions.
This was about the Air Force, but you assume it's the same everywhere.
All right.
So Vivek did a video in which he's debunking A number of hoaxes against him.
One of the hoaxes was that he made a lot of money on a failed Alzheimer's drug.
How many of you think that's true?
That he made a lot of money on a failed Alzheimer's drug?
Because that's one of the main claims about him.
No, it's not true.
He did have a failed Alzheimer's drug.
As he points out, over 99% of all Alzheimer's drug attempts failed.
He was one of them.
And it was in a subsidiary of his company, and they never sold any stock in the subsidiary.
So the stock, you know, was worth a zillion dollars, and then it was worth zero, but he rode it all the way.
He rode it to the top, and he rode it to the bottom.
Which was the ethical thing to do.
Because there was a point where he could have sold his stock at the top, before he knew if the drug worked.
He could have done that.
Decided not to.
Decided to let his investment follow the actual result of the trial.
The trial said it didn't work, and then that was it.
So that's his version.
Let me say that the only thing I know for sure is that that was his explanation.
I wasn't there, but it sounded right to me.
There's a study out of CU Boulder that says that opposites don't really attract.
So aren't you glad you studied that?
You know, I've been wondering why Lizzo wasn't returning my calls.
But science has now answered this.
Apparently opposites don't attract.
So, no call coming from me.
Was there anybody who needed science to tell them That people like to have something in common, you know, the important stuff in common with their mates.
You know, they like to have the same religion.
Usually they like to have same, at least, political leaning.
They like to be somewhere in the same age, usually, unless one of them is rich.
Yeah, I feel like they didn't need to study this so much, huh?
Do you think they wasted a little money studying this?
Feels like it.
Feels like it, yeah.
Well, let's talk about Ukraine, and I'm going to talk about the double-slit experiment, if you haven't had enough science.
Alright, Ukraine, allegedly, don't believe anything coming out of Ukraine.
Don't believe anything coming out of Ukraine.
This is just the story.
We're told.
That Ukraine has made a small puncture in the Russian lines.
But I have to admit, I was trying to visualize what difference that makes.
Because it seems to me if you punch through a line, then you're right in the middle of the strongest part of the Russian military, which is their side of the line.
So it feels like it could be a trap.
You know, bring in all the good assets.
Oh, we finally got through.
Put our best assets through the hole.
And then, you know, they get destroyed.
So, I was trying to sort of visualize, you know, how that works.
But I saw an explanation that I liked a lot, which is that the Russian forces, this is according to Dave DeMauro, a retired US Army non-commissioned officer, who was a frontline military intelligence person during the Cold War and in Iraq.
So he knows what he's talking about.
And he says that the Russians don't know how to fight in all directions.
In other words, you've got a lot of, let's say, artillery batteries that are designed to shoot bullets, they're not bullets, you know, shoot artillery in one direction.
Now obviously they could turn it around, but it's not meant for up-close fighting, right?
So if you can get a small, you know, heavy machine gun kind of truck, you can just pull up behind the artillery battery and wipe them out, because they're not really designed for defending from behind.
So the idea is that if you get a few assets through the line, you can get behind some of their stuff, totally mess up their coordination because they don't know what's going on because you're shooting them from both sides, and then there's chaos and then somehow you can take advantage of that.
So that's the idea.
So that's not my prediction or anything, just so you wondered how that works.
It's the deal is to get behind people who are not good at defending you from behind.
So there's more to it, but that's one thing that was not, wasn't obvious to me.
So I like that explanation.
How many of you are aware of the physics experiment called the double slit experiment?
I'll tell you what it is, but how many of you are familiar with it already?
A lot of you, right?
It's a famous experiment in which it gets to the question of whether light is a particle or a wave.
Have you ever heard that?
If you're like a science nerd, you've heard, oh, sometimes light is a particle, like a photon, and sometimes it's a wave.
What the hell does that mean?
What's a wave?
I never understood that until finally somebody explained that a wave is just probability.
Why don't they just say that?
A wave?
And then they say the wave is collapsed.
So the probability is collapsed into a particle when you measure it.
You know what would be another way to explain that?
There was always a photon.
We just didn't know where it was.
And then when we measured it, we knew where it was, and now we know where it is.
So there's this whole, like, big science-y experiment that's supposed to tell you about the nature of reality, and all it is is it's hard to find out where a photon is.
It's all bullshit.
It's like one of the most basic things that they try to use to explain how scientists understand the universe, but you don't.
No, they just don't know how to use words clearly.
If they use words clearly, they would say, well, there are photons.
We don't know where they are until we look.
But once we look, there they are.
And they call that collapsing the wave field.
How about tell me you didn't know where it was, but then when you checked, there it was.
Now, there's an oddity to it.
About whether you're measuring it or not.
So what the double slit experiment tries to show, but I think it's all bullshit actually, is that there's something about observation that turns things real.
Now suppose you don't believe what I just said and instead you believe the scientists.
So the scientists would say that the things don't become real until they're looked at.
And it was a study that I tweeted today, in May I guess, or it was written up in May of this year, that there is no preferred reality, it's all subjective, and that the two movies on one screen is actually literally what's happening.
That is to say, my subjective impression of what's happening is no more or less true than your subjective impression, and there isn't any base reality.
So, science is sort of heading in that direction.
So that's two movies on one screen, which I've been telling you forever, that reality is obviously subjective in my opinion.
So, here's my additive Tying together of two things that shouldn't be tied together to blow your mind.
It's coming.
I haven't said it yet.
If it's true that you can collapse reality by observation and also measurement, If it's true, that's what the scientists say.
Could it also be true, since observation is sort of a weird thing, it has to do with consciousness?
I guess if your eyes were closed, it wouldn't happen, the scientists would say.
If you were standing right in front of it with your eyes closed, and you couldn't tell it was happening, the particle wouldn't really be anywhere.
But as soon as you open your eyes, boop, it pops immediately into one position.
Now I'm simplifying because you can't see a photon, but let's say you were using equipment to look at it.
All right.
So that's what the actual scientists say is real.
So if you were to take their belief that that's real, I'm going to extend that now to a thing called affirmations and positive thinking.
Affirmations are visualizing what you want to happen in the future as if it's a reality.
Now, if, Being conscious in the present can collapse a wave field, as they say, and make something real.
Is it possible that you can collapse reality by imagining it really clearly?
Because if you told me that consciousness can collapse reality, I would say, well then you're telling me reality is subjective.
Because if I'm not there, it's not collapsing.
Or if I'm not measuring it.
But I've had, this is anecdotal, my personal observation over a lifetime is that the more clearly I can see a specific future, the more likely it happens.
Whether it's good or bad.
So I've told you that I have this ongoing problem with water leaks.
No matter where I go, whatever house, it has nothing to do with the quality of the construction.
It's just everywhere I go there are massive water leaks.
Yesterday, I'm writing a check for my handyman slash builder kind of guy, who does a lot of work in my house.
And he looks up and he goes, uh-oh.
And I'm like, I'm not looking up.
And he keeps looking up.
He's like, oh, wow.
I'm like, no, don't look up, Scott.
That ceiling was just redone, just repainted.
There is no problem up there.
And finally, I did look up.
And there's this big water bulge directly above our heads, you know, where the paint starts to bulge down just before it pops and turns into a shower.
Yeah.
Now, do you think that that was going to happen on its own?
Or do you think the fact that every time I walk through the house, I look at the ceiling and say, well, where's my next leak?
Because I expect them to be there.
That leak was exactly where I expected it to be.
I mean, in the kitchen.
Sure enough, there it was.
Do you know how many times I've been in a kitchen that rained?
Where actually water was coming from the ceiling?
I don't know the exact number, but I think it's about a dozen.
A dozen times.
Different houses.
Yeah.
Does that happen to you?
No.
But I also spend a lot of time visualizing it.
Accidentally, because I don't want it to happen, but I think about it all the time.
Because of the history.
So I've got a feeling that one of the reasons that maybe somebody have repetitive problems, people have different sets of problems, but they have the same one all the time.
I've got this one, but all the time it just never stops.
And by the way, I'm not, this is not, um, So interpreting the past.
I've been telling my followers for years that I have this continuous problem and then what I have when I report it so they can see it themselves.
I take pictures of it.
It's real.
I have continuous water leak problems.
Some people don't.
So could it be that literally everything that happens is some function of our imagination?
And if you're not imagining anything specific, then it's random.
It just happens to you.
But if you visualize it, it happens.
Yeah.
So... That's my prostate, okay.
That's funny.
It took me a while to figure that out.
All right, so my mind-breaking reframe is that it's possible that the thing that collapses the wave And make something real is how clearly you imagine it.
What do you think?
No?
Do you think it's a coincidence that Elon Musk says, and I say it as well, that the most likely outcome is the most entertaining?
That the most entertaining one is the most likely, is the better way to say it, right?
Because don't you often think about the most entertaining outcome?
Like when you think of the next presidential election, or let's say 2016, did anybody have any doubt, any doubt whatsoever, that the most entertaining outcome would be Trump winning the presidency?
Of course.
Then when he ran the second time, It wasn't really that entertaining.
It was just something that was going to happen or not happen.
You had a preference or not a preference.
But it wasn't entertaining.
In fact, it was the opposite, because we were sort of not being entertained by all the division.
And now time is going by.
And I keep telling you, the most entertaining outcome would be if Trump had a third act revival, managed to somehow, against all odds, prove there was some problem in the election, which would be the ultimate.
And then goes to the presidency and has a good presidency.
That would be the most entertaining.
And the thing is, everybody knows that.
We all know it.
Every time he opens his mouth about some new evidence about election problems, you say to yourself, I don't think he's going to prove it, but that sure would be entertaining.
That would be entertaining.
So, we'll see.
And what am I thinking of?
I'm seeing this book as the number one book in the entire world, except for religious books.
And the more clearly I see it, the more likely it'll happen.
So if you want to do this experiment to see if our imaginations can make something happen, since you have no reason not to, you're probably not competing against me for a best-selling book, Just join me.
Just imagine this the number one book.
Just imagine it.
That's all.
We'll see what happens.
Oh yes, I don't know the details, but Joe Biggs, one of the January 6th people, got 17 years.
Is that right?
I don't know the details of his case.
I would just say that on the surface, that doesn't look like justice to me.
And I would say that that's another example of why you pretty much have to elect Trump or somebody like Vivek.
I wouldn't vote for anybody who didn't promise to pardon the January 6th people.
To me, that's bottom line.
By the way, has DeSantis said he would or would not?
What has DeSantis said?
DeSantis is quiet on it or he says he won't?
He's just quiet about it, right?
Yes, he would?
He's not talking about pardoning Trump though.
Alright, so here's the thing.
Any candidate who doesn't say it directly, I will pardon these people.
I think they're disqualified.
Do you agree?
If you can't say it out loud, that's disqualifying.
Pence can't say it.
He's disqualified.
I think that's got to be the ticket to the show.
If you can't say it directly, I don't even want to hear anything else you have to say.
I don't care about your policies.
Don't care about your character.
Don't care about your history.
Don't care about your anything.
If you're not willing to do that simple thing, then you're willing to let your party burn if the other side decides they want to.
That is unacceptable.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, I believe.
That is what we want to talk about today.
I would like to mention a reframe that I heard on the Joe Rogan Show.
I think I'll mention reframes even when they're not my own.
This one comes from Jocko Willick.
And I won't explain it as well as he does, if you want to see the video where Jocko explains it, it's much better.
But he's got this thing he says when bad news happens.
He says, And the first time I heard it, and Joe Rogan says he now uses that technique when something bad happens or something's hard, he says, good.
And I thought to myself, that couldn't possibly work, right?
Because it's a little bit opposite of what a hypnotist would recommend.
Generally, you don't want to recommend saying something that's observably not true.
Right?
You'd like to stick with things that you actually feel are true.
But if you say that bad news is good, And your brain is like, well, but is it?
You know, so it's a little unclear messaging to yourself.
But I tried it.
I tried it yesterday.
So when I got the leak in my ceiling, I'm like, because it wasn't just a few hours ago, I'd heard about that reframe.
And I thought, well, I'll give it a try.
So I look at the ceiling and I go, good.
I swear to God it worked.
It worked.
It completely changed my connection to the problem.
What the hell?
It worked.
It worked instantly.
It actually worked instantly.
Now that one's as weird as there's a reframe I do have in the book, in which the reframe is if you have some big problem and it's just bugging you, you say that the problem has as much of a right to exist as I do.
Doesn't make any sense, right?
It's the same as saying that your problem is good, or that anything is good about it.
Now, in Jocko, it had more of an explanation.
It had something to do with, you know, another challenge to overcome, you know, you'll learn something, maybe there's an opportunity that comes out of the bad news, because bad news often kicks up opportunities.
So you have a little explanation around it, but I'm not even sure you needed it.
I think the word itself carried the power.
You just associate it with a positive word and suddenly it changed how you feel about it.
It was that easy.
Yeah, so just say if you had a problem, well, the problem has a right to exist.
And it just won't bother you as much.
You'll still work on it if you can solve it, but if you just put a different word on it.
Now again, I'll remind you that the power of reframes, and by the way, the way that I can tell when my critics who give me one-star reviews, the way I can tell that they haven't read the book is they say it's a book of advice.
It's not a book of advice.
It's a book of words that change your brain.
Like good, in that context.
It's just a word.
The word itself has the power.
It's like a little program.
So a reframe is like a little program that you put into your head to optimize something.
It doesn't have to be true.
It doesn't have to be logical.
It just has to work.
And that's what good does.
It just works.
So if you want to spend all your time figuring out why it works, you can.
Maybe that would be interesting.
But it doesn't matter.
It works.
Try it.
So Jocko, good job on that.
That was really useful.
So when I tell people that my 160 reframes will change your life, if the only one you'd ever heard was Jocko's, that's a pretty big change.
It immediately made all the problems for the rest of my life a little bit less bothersome.
Because I'll just do that again.
It looks like it works.
So imagine how big the changes are that you can make just by a little tuning of the words in your head.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, that's all for now.
Thanks for joining us on YouTube for the best live stream you've ever seen.
