Russell chats to Scott Adams, the creator & cartoonist behind the Dilbert comic strip, trained hypnotist, host of ‘Real Coffee’ and author of the new book: ‘Reframe Your Brain’. Together, they discuss the power of Trump's persuasive skills, the concept of “reframe”, like a software patch for human thought, and our constant need for dopamine.Support this channel directly here: https://rb.rumble.com/Watch my full conversation with Scott Adams ONLY on Locals: https://bit.ly/locals-Scott-Adams-FullJoin 'Real Coffee with Scott Adams' - scottadams.locals.comScott's new book Reframe Your Brain is available, here
As you know, once the government demonetize you, your support becomes absolutely invaluable.
Thanks for joining us.
We've got a fantastic interview, an extended interview, in fact, with Scott Adams, who you might know from Dilbert, you might know from his recent You might know because of his excellent and interesting books.
I'm going to be talking to him about all of that.
Click the link in the description.
And if it's within your means, press the red button.
Become a member of our Awakened Wonders Locals community.
His show, Real Coffee, is on Locals.
He wrote the book, Reframe Your Brain.
You can see this conversation in its entirety on Locals.
You can see it now.
There's an extra half an hour that you're going to just love.
But let me welcome now, Scott Adams.
Scott, I'm actually very grateful and excited to meet you.
Well, thank you.
I'm pretty excited myself.
I'm a big fan.
I really enjoyed your... You know the Trump book on persuasion?
Obviously you do.
Yeah, Winn-Biggly.
Of course.
I really enjoyed that book.
I was fascinated by it.
Of course, I suppose leadership Leadership remains a fascinating subject, I suppose because leadership and persuasion are the ability to, through charisma perhaps, or through other means, and perhaps you'll explain them to me, create
Realities that people will willingly or even unconsciously participate in.
Tell me what you think specifically Trump exemplifies.
In the book you talk about him being sort of some like indigenous or native or a natural genius when it comes to the art of persuasion.
What do you mean by that and what are examples of that?
Well, he seems to have the full toolbox of persuasion, which if you didn't study it as a field, as I do, I'm a trained hypnotist, you wouldn't recognize.
So for example, the number one tool of persuasion is fear.
So he started out in 2015, the illegal people who may be criminals are streaming across the border and, you know, Chinese could eat our lunch and basically scaring you.
The other thing he does is visual.
The second biggest thing you can do is create a picture in people's head, because we're visual creatures.
So when he says we need better border security, he doesn't talk about a concept.
He talks about a wall.
So you imagine the wall in your head, the wall that you want to see.
He says it's big and beautiful, doesn't over-specify it, which is also a hypnotist trick.
If you over-specified it, people would not see it.
They'd say, oh, I'm not seeing that wall.
But if you say it's a big, beautiful wall, then people imagine the big, beautiful wall of their own preference.
That's pure technique.
He also says it's going to have a door in it.
Now, that's making you think past the sale, because you already have to accept there could be a wall for there also to be a door.
And then he tops it off with, and Mexico's going to pay for it?
Now, that's the funniest, make you think best, the sale I've ever seen.
Because if he can make you argue about how ridiculous it is that Mexico would pay for the wall, you've already uncritically accepted that there might be a wall.
It's a car salesman's trick.
The car salesman says, how do you think you'll use this car?
Or do you think you would feel better in the red one or the white one?
So if you're thinking about the details, they've made you think past the sale.
He uses that all the time.
But his real magic is the nicknames.
And he comes up with nicknames that are not only visual, like Low Energy Jeb, It's a concept, but when you see him, it changes how you see him.
And I always say that when I first saw Jeb Bush, you know, come on the scene, I thought to myself, wow, he's got exactly that executive, calm, cool, you know, probably would be great in an emergency because he wouldn't get too excited about it, you know.
And then the moment that Trump says he's low energy, That's all I could see, because he made a comparison between his own energy and Jeb, and from that moment on you could only see it.
But the other magic he does is he picks a nickname that will be almost certainly reinforced by future events.
So when he says low-energy gem, you know there's going to be a video where somebody says, there he is, he's looking low-energy.
You could probably find that for anybody.
But then when he says Crooked Hillary, you think to yourself, ah, there's no way she won't be at least accused of something that would fit into that frame.
So he's the master framer.
He creates the frame, and then you buy it.
My favorite one lately is the perfect phone call.
He's used it twice.
Where he talks about his call to Ukraine, where he was impeached, and his call to the, I guess, the Attorney General, was it, of Georgia?
And in both cases, he got in trouble for something he said on the call.
Well, he says, it's a perfect call.
Now, he said it so many times, and you laugh about it when you hear it, because it's a little bit extreme to say it's perfect.
But it's also in your head.
So every time one of those stories gets the headline, I look at the headline and in my head goes, perfect call!
Even though I don't believe it, you know, I mean, I'm not persuaded by just those words.
The words just pop up in your head.
And that's the secret behind a reframe and behind hypnosis and a lot of AI as well.
It seems like what you're saying, and I would say it's alluring and it's an attractive proposition, is that there are kind of universal principles in communication.
that don't alter, whether they're within the realm of hypnosis or neuro-linguistic programming.
They are just certain indefatigable facts that if people use them, you know, I like to think,
"No, no, I'm very sophisticated. I know how to discern information. I'll know if someone's
trying to dupe me or lead me up the garden path." But this is sort of, in a sense, an inability to
acknowledge my own hardware and my own unconscious biases and the way that the part of me that's
beyond me is likely to behave.
Firstly do you think that Trump is doing this instinctively almost as a genius might in the way a genius athlete or like sort of the way that Marlon Brando might pick up a glove and on the waterfront and just sort of thumb it unconsciously creating an organic naturalness or The way that Willie Mays might strike a ball, and I know nothing of baseball, so I would use football if it was left to me, but I know who the audience are.
Or do you think that this is something that he's learned through sales?
Because in a sense, these are sales techniques.
I often see how the culture has evolved, often around people that I admire, even mentors of mine, that at their point of origin would have been much more
focused on the world of sales and pitching that now have migrated into a more overtly spiritual space,
I would say. In a way, some of the principles hold true. I know that thing of two
suggestions and then two verifiables and then a suggestion. I recognize what you're saying about
that stuff. It seems like I'm making these notes and thinking, "Yeah, man, this is how I should
be communicating. This is how we should all be communicating if our job, and God, has it not become
our job now more than ever, to present a version of reality that's more appealing than our
opponents'. If Trump is a genius of it, say, if that is indeed what you believe and somehow a native
genius of it, is it stuff that everyone does badly and even his opponents do it badly? Can you talk
us through a few examples of their crap versions of it as well?
Well, the universals would include repetition.
The more you repeat something, the more people think it's true.
That's what he does with the perfect phone call.
He just keeps saying it until you can't not think it when it's paired with the topic.
So he's got that, but he has all the sales techniques of thinking past the sale, et cetera.
Those are not natural.
Those are learned behaviors, I'm pretty sure, because you wouldn't think to do it, you would think to just describe why you should buy it.
If left to your own devices, you'd say, This car has many good features.
It's affordable, but he goes to imagine it in your garage.
That's learned behavior.
I don't think you'd pick that up on your own.
His minister of the church he went to every Sunday when he was a kid, his family, was the author of the book, The Power of Positive Thinking.
Whose name is escaping me for some reason.
I can never remember his name.
But he was the most influential, positive thinking person of his time.
The book was an enormous bestseller.
Influenced me a great deal.
I was that age as well.
But imagine going to church and having somebody who was considered the most influential person in the country.
So much so that the author was blamed Or accused of being a hypnotist, because he was so influential.
So I think that Trump probably got it from his father, who was probably selling real estate projects as well.
So some of it he picked up, and some of it I think he is a natural.
But he goes for fear somewhat automatically.
And association, he's good at associating something negative with something positive.
One of the reframes in my book uses this technique, the same one he uses, and the reframe is alcohol is poison.
Now, that's not true, per se, because it's just a definition.
Could be a beverage, could be a form of entertainment, could be a liquid.
But if you just pair it with the word poison, it lets you more easily, you know, say no to a drink.
Doesn't work for alcoholics, it does work for people who just want to cut down.
So that reframe actually is the one that I hear the most from.
Probably twice a week, I hear from somebody, a stranger who says, I stopped drinking entirely with one sentence.
So that's how powerful this stuff can be, and Trump is a master of it.
In actuality, I am in recovery.
And this idea of compounding concepts is significant even in the, I don't know if it's more sophisticated or simply different, but the idea of abstinence is predicated, of course, on the notion that it is the first drink that's the problem, not the ninth or the 10th or that you'll ever be able to drink safely.
And in this instance, the compound is to equate even drinking at all with an annihilation of your life.
And in fact, any kind of behavioral adjunct pivot progression
would have to be predicated upon a vision of some description.
And in the case of like a 12 step person like me, it's I now equate the use of a recreational drug,
even or, you know, street drugs, or even a sort of a socially acceptable
and legal drug like alcohol with personal destruction.
And that like that is a, you know, it's a form of conditioning has taken place
and ultimately sort of in this instance, a beneficial one.
I wonder if, you know, obviously comment on anything you want to mate,
but like, I wonder if you think that part of what Trump has been able to do in addition to his evident
and obvious rhetorical skill, and I've always thought it was a failing of his opponents
not to sort of acknowledge and register and enjoy that even when opposing him,
because it sometimes looks like they don't inhabit the same sort of universe as everyone else
when they just sort of say he's stupid or whatever.
I I wonder if there's something, one, that he engages with people emotionally in a way that's sort of somehow anomalous or at least rare in an age of bureaucrats and managerial politicians that are somewhat visionless.
And this idea of vision, this idea of being able to give an authentic vision.
to an audience. And given that we're living in a time of obvious conflict where the culture is,
in a sense, it feels to me, and again tell me what you feel, and I know I'm throwing a lot
at you here but I feel like you're tracking it, like that the culture is trying to centralise
and control perception. The culture is aggressively saying, "This is what reality is,
Don't allow that information in.
This is the information that you have to believe.
If you don't believe this information, you are the worst kind of nefarious individual.
Do you think, how do you believe we can penetrate, challenge, attack, control, overcome that?
Well, the tough part is you never know who your enemies are.
Because I feel like whoever's behind the shadow banning and maybe some cancellations that are more political than content related, you don't really ever know who's behind it.
So if you look at my situation, the Washington Post was sort of the flagship that got the other newspapers to cancel me.
But the Washington Post is well known as, let's say, well connected with the intelligence outfit in the United States.
So the question I ask is, is the fact that the Washington Post is so associated with Democrats and also the intelligence group, which are also associated with the Democrats, is it a coincidence that no Republicans cancelled me?
So when we're talking about free speech and how do you penetrate the narrative, there's also some amount of dirty tricks and secret players that are really hard to know who your targets are.
So it's hard to fight back when you don't know who you're fighting against.
That's what I feel like all the time.
But to answer, the only way I can imagine there would be a difference is people like Trump who can break through because he's just too hard not to cover.
You can't ignore him.
R.F.K.
Jr.
is running for president, he says, in large part because it's the only way he could have free speech.
If he's not a presidential candidate, he could get kicked off the platforms for what they would say is telling untruths.
So it's going to be personalities who can take a hit.
RFK Jr.
is, you know, being hated by his own family.
He's in physical, you know, risk of assassination.
And you just made me do that.
That's how it works.
Damn it.
Vote for me, Mayor of London.
By the way, that's that's one of the tricks to just do is they try to get somebody to copy them in a meeting.
But anyway, I think it's going to take personalities who don't mind getting cancelled.
So they tried to take me out, but I'm still talking.
They tried to take Tucker out, but he's still talking.
So I think that some of it's going to be people who just were willing to take the hit and could still get some attention.
You'll see people like Oh, shoot.
I'm terrible at remembering names when I'm on video.
Tell us and we'll work it out together.
The first one was Norman Peel.
That was the preacher and the writer of that Positive Thinking book.
I didn't get that myself.
James, who's producing the show, put it up.
And this one we'll work out together as well.
Greenberg, Greenwald.
Glenn Greenwald, yeah.
So he's one of the superstars of telling you what's really happening behind the scenes.
Yeah.
But is it a coincidence that he has to do it from outside the country?
Yeah.
Like, those are the kind of questions that I ask.
It's like, do I have to go to another country?
Yeah.
Just for freedom of speech?
And I saw today, you know, Mike Benz.
He's another person on the Axe platform who talks about the intelligence agencies, you know, maneuverings behind the scenes, as if he's opening the hood so we can see.
And I think it was today he was tweeting that he's expecting, you know, just a massive personal attack and probably some form of lawfare against him.
And I think he's right.
So, I don't know where this stuff comes from.
I don't know who the personalities are behind it, but something looks coordinated, even if it's not.
It has that appearance.
It appears, too, that what was once regarded as the, I would say, liberal left and the assumption that built into that were ideals that grew out of the civil rights movement that are pretty righteous and laudable.
Somehow this...
set of interests has become curiously authoritarian in the name of liberty, safety, convenience.
I'm seeing these odd pacts emerge between sort of big tech and sort of neoliberalism
that are creating curiously in a way that I could never have imagined.
Alliances on what might once have been termed the other side of the aisle, but you've mentioned
Glenn Greenwald, and let's mention him once more.
In a way, personally, and I wouldn't expect you to know this or even care, I used to be
regarded as a kind of conventional lefty sort of Hollywood type person, but I was always
actually anti-authoritarian and sort of pro-individual freedom and pro-community freedom.
I was also interested in community and care about society and have values and principles.
And then as my content became more vocally anti-establishment, as I started to speak out against electoral democracy, its corruption, legacy media, how they simply amplify state and corporate state message at that, rather than interrogating it, how they spend no resources
on investigating issues that really seriously affect people and significant resources on
bringing down dissent and controlling potential dissidents. I started to be called like right-wing and a
right-wing conspiracy theorist and like I've spoken to a bunch of people that I guess
Conservative.
And I find them absolutely delightful, I'd have to say.
But I still feel that what's emerging, potentially now, is something new.
And I cite often Martin Guri's book, The Revolt of the Public, which is a sort of, in a way, a companion piece to that famous book, Here Comes Everyone, that simply explores how The way that communication technology has altered has meant that the establishment can no longer keep up with the diversification and dissemination of information and has necessarily become authoritarian in order to countenance these new threats, these new information threats.
And in order to legitimise what they're doing, which is basically state censorship, they've had to invent new categories, misinformation, disinformation, and create
enemies that would warrant, this is why you see people being called Nazis and the most egregious
and awful things that you can accuse anybody of, racist, and the list, we can all add
to that list of course, because they need to legitimize the end goal, shut down dissent,
control dissent invoices, because any dissent invoice, now anyone with a phone is a potential
threat.
Martin Goury talked about that in The Revolt of the Public, that the old models are dying, so they have to find ways of controlling the emergent new model.
And in a sense, Trump was, you know, one of the first people that effectively used these new forms of communication technology, famously through Twitter as it then was.
And I wonder what you think about these likelihood of new alliances with people with a broad base of social philosophy and ideology.
I wonder what you think about the possibility, and again I suppose to your point about who are these people that are controlling it.
I guess I would say that it's the nexus of interests that exist between, like for example with this new online safety bill in the UK, demonstrates that the UK government and the EU and all of the Five Eyes countries are introducing legislation that enables their government in unprecedented ways to utilise big tech so that, and I guess it's like a deal they're doing really, of we're not going to shut you guys down and your ability to profit and advertise if you allow us to Yeah, you know, my take on this is that I see the world as a big old dopamine machine.
So people are chasing dopamine.
I used to say, follow the money and it explains everything.
But money is just a holding place for dopamine, right?
You can keep it in your money until you're ready to buy the jazz ski, and then you get your dopamine.
So, when you're looking at why is it this weird connection of people who don't even seem to be on the side they used to be on, I think it's because the philosophical layer, the why we do things, has always been fake for the people in power.
The people in power want to keep their job, keep their influence, keep their dopamine high, you know, have more babies than the other people, so basically win.
So, whatever it takes to win is what they're going to promote, and it doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be consistent with what they've ever done, it doesn't have to be ethical, it doesn't have to be moral, because they're just chasing dopamine.
So, once you see the world as a dopamine chase, everything makes sense.
It's just very unpleasant to think of it that way.
Yeah, it does seem pretty, obviously literally endocrinal and therefore animal and unconscious and beyond individual freedom and beyond any kind of freedom you might conceive of.
Hey, you said that Trump would win in 2016, famously, when people were considering it to be a preposterous and implausible outcome.
So what do you think about 2024?
In 2024, almost anything could happen.
We're in a weird situation where I do worry about his physical security.
I do worry that 91, what looked like to me, political charges, is not the end of it.
And it looks like there's no level of obviousness that they're trying, well, they're not trying to be less obvious anymore.
The latest charges in New York, Look to me like they're not even trying to be legitimate.
It looks to me like it's just purely political.
And I don't know if most of the country will either understand banking and insurance issues to know how blatantly, obviously political it is or not.
But they're not trying to hide anything.
I think complexity is the friend of the The power mongers, because they can hide anything in complexity, say, well, you don't understand legal tax accounting things, bad, orange man, bad.
And then, you know, trust us, orange man, bad accounting, you don't understand.
And they could take anybody down with that.
So, I would expect that if Trump survives these charges, all the ones we know about, I think they'll just be new ones.
I think they'll just invent new ones until they can find some way to take him out.
They'll obviously go after all of his lawyers, anybody who would talk to him, anybody who would support him.
If you say anything nice about him, even though I'm endorsing Vivek Ramaswamy, I like somebody younger for the next era.
Even then, because I say positive things about Trump's skill set, they'll try to take me on as well.
Now, the thing about free speech is the people trying to suppress it are, of course, the people in power, because people in power are the ones who are most, let's say, threatened by free speech.
So they don't have to take everybody out.
They only have to take out the notables.
Because if they take out the people who are really good at communicating and have some chance of breaking through into their base that doesn't hear the other arguments, those are the dangerous ones.
They don't need to take out everybody who has a social media account and complains online.
They're not moving the needle.
They only have to take out the few that are making a difference.
And I think they've strategically picked pretty well so far.
Really?
Do you think that is what's happening?
Well, it's hard to look at the group of people who have been cancelled lately and not notice that they're the best communicators.
That's hard not to notice.
That is pretty interesting.
May I ask you a little bit about your own experience of cancellation?
Are you comfortable to talk about it?
Sure.
What is it that you sort of, like I saw you say that white people should stay away from black people because there was so much tension being generated and it wasn't safe.
What did you mean and how do you think it was misused especially?
Well, everything that public figures say gets taken out of context, because there's always a bigger context.
So, the bigger context is that in the United States and other countries as well, we're suffering under these things called ESG and CRT and DEI.
Now, they all have in common the idea that there's an oppressor group and an oppressed group.
The oppressors are the rich old white guys, mostly, but white people in general.
And the oppressed are black people and people of color, but black people in particular, because of the legacy of slavery and ongoing systemic racism.
And so the idea is that if you're in the group that has been labeled the oppressor, and the other group has been told that you've oppressed them and you have their stuff, And they should get it back.
That's the worst place you should be.
So if you can escape from that situation, you should.
You should run away from it.
It has nothing to do with anybody's DNA.
It has nothing to do with anybody's culture.
So it has nothing to do with even the color.
It has to do with the fact that we've decided to organize our society in a way that we're trading people, not only in school, But all the way through their corporate life and through the media, that one group of people are the bad people and they have your stuff.
That is a really dangerous situation.
Now, it's hyperbole to say, get away, because we live in a big world in which getting away isn't really a practical thing.
So I was hoping people would see that as hyperbole.
But if you take it seriously, it sounds like a sounds like a whole different thing.
Yeah, I suppose in a sense it appears to me that elite interests have always been able to dominate.
I mean, what is power other than the ability to dominate and control reality, whether that's the perception of reality or the economics of reality themselves?
And yeah, there is a sort of a reductivism in many of the dominant narratives around
how we should sort of almost re-segregate society that don't seem to have a very, what
do I want to say, congenial vision for our future.
I.e. there is not a very optimistic appraisal of our ability to live together beyond our
demographic distinctions.
And that really, really worries me because I think it is ultimately advantageous to the
very same groups that benefit from prohibiting free speech.
When you said that thing before that ultimately it is dopamine, that's the sort of, you know,
like beneath even the level of the individual, the kind of element.
The element that we're moving on.
I wonder if you feel that in using that type of framing and that type of analytic we can look at what's happening when the more vilified Trump becomes the more popular he becomes.
Superficially it would seem that people are so mistrustful of the legacy media and detest the state so deeply and this is something I spoke to Glenn Greenwald and I spoke last week And he said that people hate the state and they actually hate the media now.
It's like there is a hatred that's almost a tipping point.
And that, in a way, an anti-establishment figure, for whatever you think of Trump, whether you're pro-Trump or anti-Trump person, it's pretty plain the establishment don't want him there.
It's pretty plain they're going to considerable lengths to prevent him becoming an incumbent political force, at least.
I wonder, What type of ways might this undercurrent, this emotional undercurrent, be harnessed, corralled, motivated, activated for anti-establishment movements elsewhere?
And if you agree with the basic analysis that he's become an anti-establishment icon?
Well, that's a tough one.
So how could you harness the anti-establishment powers like Trump?
Yeah.
Or other places?
Yeah.
Well, it's a singular character.
You know, you'd have to find somebody who just, by luck, had similar characteristics and, you know, a billion dollars so they could, you know, weather the storms and didn't need to have a day job and all kinds of things.
And they'd have to be a certain age.
I mean, there's things I would say at my current age that I never would have said as a younger man, because right now I'm risking a few extra years of my remaining life.
So that's a smaller risk than 40 years of life.
So I'm in a lower risk situation, as is Trump, because he's a certain age.
So, he can simply do and say things that other people are not free to do.
So, that's the kind of freedom you could imagine other places would have, older people.
But I don't recommend people over, I don't know, 75 being in office.
It's not the greatest idea.
So, that's not the greatest plan.
Here's what I think is happening.
The future is fully unpredictable.
And at the moment, everything looks bad.
Would you agree?
It just looks like the entire fabric of civilization is coming apart.
It's unraveling in every way, everywhere.
But here's the positive to that.
We had to break it.
The system that was going forward was not the system that we could have forever.
It has to be broken.
Everything was corrupt.
We just didn't know it as well as we know it now.
We didn't know that the news was as fake as Trump taught us.
Once we started looking for it, you could see it everywhere.
But until he alerted you to it, you thought, well, maybe a few stories are sketchy, but mostly they're playing it straight down the middle.
They're not.
Everything is rigged.
Everything is crooked.
And we might be at a point where just breaking everything is the right move.
So when I hear things like Matt Gaetz might cause chaos in the Congress with his latest moves about the Speaker, I think to myself, chaos.
That's exactly what you do before you build a house.
You destroy the house that's there, because you can't really just fix the one that's there.
You just got to bulldoze it.
The first step of building is destruction.
So we may be entering a transparently beneficial destruction period.
But we're also nimble enough in 2023, and there are enough smart people and hardworking people, that we can actually adjust to incredible shocks.
I mean, we got through COVID.
That was quite a shock.
We've gotten through world wars.
We're very resilient.
We've also gotten through, you know, we're going to run out of food, but we didn't.
We're going to run out of oil, but we didn't.
The ozone hole is going to open up and fry us.
It didn't.
Year 2000 is going to end us all.
It didn't.
So we're really good at seeing problems way ahead of time and then adjusting appropriately.
So my most likely prediction for the United States is that there will be corrective forces because there always are.
Things don't go in one direction forever.
That's just not a feature of human experience.
Things do reach a point that's too far.
This week, for example, we're hearing there was a member of Congress who had a carjacking.
There was a journalist who got murdered in his home in Philadelphia.
So the stories of crime in the cities Are certainly going to cause a change to the massive, you know, let's say unmitigated immigration into the cities.
So we're reaching a breaking point, but not for the wrong reason.
We're probably reaching a breaking point because you have to use reality to fix people's brains if they're living in an illusion.
If the illusion is we can be kind to everybody and it'll all work out, well the massive immigration into New York City is the physical disproof of that.
So you probably need a physical disproof to change people's minds.
And the minds are what needs to be changed right now.
So we might be heading toward a lot of destruction, but creative destruction.
I feel often that the amount of effort, bureaucracy, corruption, legislation, militarisation of the police forces, anti-protest laws, new censorship bills, increasing surveillance, cultural machinery that appears to be utilised to divide people from one another, collectively to be taken as a scale of endeavor that must
be matched by a kind of latent and unexpressed belief that real change is possible and burgeoning
and that there will come a point where people are willing to overlook cultural
differences if the right messages can reach them/us and recognize that ultimately we have
more in common than one another than the small sets of institutions and interests that benefit
from this ongoing state of crisis and decay that you describe. Also I agree with your
necessity of destruction being a precedent or a precursor to real change in a kind of almost
Vedic Shiva the destroyer creator way because I also feel sometimes that whilst it
appears to be an archetype that most cultures lean into, the idea of a golden age, the
idea of Eden, the idea of a time where we were more awake. It feels to me that...
There is a heaviness in our materialism.
There is a heaviness in our individualism.
The rationalism has voided the space between us, has robbed us of the potential charge that can exist between individuals and create the kind of charismatic healing that great individuals can bring about and perhaps great social movements can.
So I sometimes take heart In how hard they work to prevent change from happening that in a sense like you know I'm sure this is something that you're familiar with it seems like your kind of wheelhouse those miraculous moments where suddenly tulips are no longer prized where sort of economic bubbles burst where new realities just penetrate immediately and people sort of simultaneously awake as if there's some new perfume has reached something dormant within them so
That's how I keep myself cheerful, Scott.
I wonder if you might tell us a little more.
I know that your Alcohol Is Poison is part of your Reframe Your Brain, at least some of the ideas that you cover within your new book, Reframe Your Brain.
What else is in there, mate?
Well, Reframe Your Brain has tricks for basically making yourself more successful and happier in a bunch of situations.
Let me tell you one that's really good if you're nervous.
You know, let's say you're real nervous about where things are going.
And let's say there's some things in your past that are really, really bothering you.
You know, your baggage, something you're guilty about, whatever.
Here's a good little mental trick.
Just imagine that you're in a video game That your reality is actually just a video game and you're in it, and you just respawned, and you just came alive, and you're in the life that you observe, but you have to figure it out from here.
And you say to yourself, alright, I'm just born now, so the time started today, and if I do this exercise, I say, okay, what am I?
I'm a male, I'm alive, I seem to be perfectly healthy.
I look in the mirror, I go, I could be a lot uglier.
Not good.
I could be a lot worse.
And then I look around and I go, oh, check my bank account.
Looks pretty good.
Looks pretty good.
What's my job?
Not bad.
Not bad at all.
Do I have friends?
Do I have some family I love?
I do.
Do I love my dog?
And you can take, if you just forget the history, because history is imaginary anyway, you know, the future doesn't exist.
History doesn't exist at all.
You can't grab a handful of it.
You can't rub it on your face.
It's gone.
So if you just do the video game reframe, I just respond, would this be a good day or a bad day if I woke up into this life?
And suddenly, a lot of things that were bothering you, that were monstrously big problems, don't seem so much.
You're just sitting here in your life and saying, huh, I think I can make this work.
We're gonna leave my conversation with Scott Adams, writer of Reframe Your Brain.
There's a link in the description connecting you to that.
And if you wanna see the rest of it, and I'll tell you what, it's worth it.
It became a very organic and brilliant conversation.
If you wanna see it in its entirety, click the red button right there and become an awakened wonder.
If you press that awaken button, you get access to all sorts of additional content and we're gonna be providing even more.
We are building this movement around you.
Once the government step in and demonetize you, that's it now, that's it.
That's it.
Boots on the ground.
Fully in.
That's us, baby.
The rest of the conversation is fantastic.
You really will love it.
It's really worth pressing that red button and becoming a member of our community like Matty Otter, Mark Lester and Limba Timber.
Thank you for joining us.
Thank you for supporting us.
I value you.
I care about you.
I appreciate you.
So join us tomorrow.
Not for more of the same.
We won't give you that, but for more of the different.
