Episode 997 Scott Adams: There Will be Cursing Tonight. Lots of Cursing. Hide the Children.

So there's a little question that people have challenged me with. And it goes like this, Scott. They say, you said recently that tutorial videos should not have an introduction. You should just get right into the lesson. And then you do these periscopes and you have this blah, blah, blah, simultaneous sip introduction stuff like I'm doing right now. Feels like some kind of a hypocrite or something. But let me tell you why I do it on these live streams. I do it on the live streams so you have time to get in here. That's why. But as a secondary effect, which is this is a persuasion tip, those of you who got in here early, you're going to get the persuasion tip. This is a really, really, really strong persuasion tip. If you were to rank all of the tips for persuasion, this would be in the top five right up there with scaring people and using visual persuasion, simplicity, etc. So it's one of your top persuasion tips. It goes like this. If you can get somebody to do anything, anything you can get them to do more. More likely. It's a statistical thing. So if you can get somebody to do you a small favor, it primes them to do larger favors. This is proven by studies. By the way, if you read the book Influence by Cialdini, he talks about this. So a salesperson, for example, would try to get you to do something small, because if they can get you to do something, they can build on that to get you to do a little bit more. You become comfortable with the idea that somebody's giving you ideas and you're acting upon them. So when I do the simultaneous sip, people enjoy it. In fact, I didn't invent it and then spring it on people. I just sort of did it one day and people said they liked it, so I did more of it. So basically I was just responding to the public. But the reason I responded is that I recognized that it would be the strongest form of bonding relationship. Just like singing, just like exercising together, just like going through an experience together. If I can get any percentage of you to do the simultaneous sip in the morning, we bond. Is there anything wrong with that? No, because you know exactly what I'm doing. It's very transparent. I'm telling you. I do it because people like it and it helps you bond. Nothing wrong with that, right? The world is persuasion. It's not all bad, persuasion. It's not all manipulation. Sometimes it's just engineering. Wouldn't you like your content to be more interesting? Of course you would. So would I I would like your content to be more interesting too. So I use techniques which are fully transparent to make it so. So that's what that's all about. In the news today, Joe Biden went to a cemetery. No, no, no, no. He's still alive. He visited a cemetery. He visited. We think he visited. He was wearing a mask and dark aviator glasses. So I'm not going to say it was 100% Joe Biden, but the parts that we could see, which was really just this little narrow forehead part, it looked a lot like his forehead, I gotta say. I mean, you could sort of fake the hair and the glasses and the mask, but that little strip on his forehead, I think that was him. I would recognize that anywhere. So he got out of the basement, I think, for Christmas instead of Elf on a Shelf. Have you heard of that? I don't know exactly what that's all about. I think there was a children's book called Elf on a Shelf. So every Christmas people put a little elf on the shelf. I don't know why you do it, but I think this Christmas we should have basement Bidens. Biden in the basement. I think I might repurpose one of my Dilbert dolls to make it a little Joe Biden doll. I'll just put a little face on it. And I'm going to make that my basement Biden. And I'm just going to put that in my basement as a sort of a holiday tradition. Interestingly, Joe Biden visited the cemetery today, but I did not see footage of him leaving. So, I mean, I'm not trying to start any rumors, I'm just stating a fact. I saw a video of him arriving. Didn't see any video of him leaving. Not that that means anything. I'm just telling you the facts. So CNN found a way to be more ridiculous today. You didn't think it was possible, did you? Come on, be honest. Did you think it was possible for CNN to be more ridiculous? You didn't, you didn't think that, but here it is and I swear I'm not making this up. This is an actual fucking tweet from cnn. Oh, that was just a warm up. There will be more cursing later. Stick around for that. Here's the actual tweet from cnn. And I swear it looks like it's just a joke or something. So it says the novel coronavirus seems to mean more deadly for men. And I'm thinking to myself, well, that's unusual. Is CNN highlighting dangers to men now? Because that's unusual. But read on that's just the first sentence. The novel coronavirus seems to be more deadly for men, but in many other ways, women are bearing the brunt of this pandemic. What? What? For instance, it goes on. For instance, the majority of health workers are women, yet they get paid. I didn't read the whole fucking tweet. I didn't read the whole fucking tweet before I decided to do this because the part I read was so stupid. I thought, oh, I got to read this in public. Only right now, I swear, is the first time I've read the rest of the tweet. I didn't know it was this funny. Yet they get paid 20% less on average than men, according to the. Wait for it. Wait for it. I want to read the beginning of the sentence again so that we can have the timing right when I do the reveal for the end of the sentence. The end of the sentence is going to be an expert entity or organization, possibly somebody who studied this carefully. So this is going to be an authority at the end of the sentence. Let me start from the beginning of the sentence so that we have the full context here from CNN's tweet. For instance, the majority of health workers are women, yet they get paid 28% less on average than men, according to the World Health Organization. I pause for your laughter. First of all, I don't want to get into the whole men getting paid more than women stuff, but can we accept that only the poorly educated believe that's a thing? Am I right? The people who are actually more educated have looked into that question and they know that the, the wage gap is explained by experience and all the normal things. It basically disappears when you start looking at it. Now, if you're poorly educated, you don't know that, do you? And there might be a few of you poorly educated people who have found your way onto this periscope by accident because maybe you didn't know it was coming, you just thought that it would be swearing and you thought, well, I'd like to get in on, on all this swearing. But first of all, is there any, is there any quote, fact in the world that has been more thoroughly debunked than the 28% wage gap difference between men and women? It's probably the most debunked fact maybe in the whole world. I don't know how that's, I don't know if anything's been more debunked than that. But how many people are coming over here to the, to this periscope who are hearing that for the very first time. I'll bet a lot of you, I bet a lot of you are saying what? That's not true. Everybody knows women are underpaid 28% or something like that compared to men. That's just a fact because of discrimination, isn't it? Not so much. It's a fact to the poorly educated segment of the population. And when I say poorly educated, I don't mean that they didn't go to good schools. I don't mean that they didn't necessarily go to college or even good colleges. What I mean is that they're stuck in a news silo. And if you were in a news silo on the left, does that look like left to you? Okay, if you were in the news silo on the left, you would be unaware that that is the most debunked statistic in the history of statistics. Can you think of anything that's more debunked than that? It is literally the most debunked fake news of all time, I think. I don't know anything that's been more debunked than that. But there are a few of you who just wandered on here and just thought to themselves, I'm not sure I believe this cartoonist idiot. Because what science is he looking at? Because all the science, all the science, 100% of it agrees with what CNN says. Well, if you only watch CNN and left leaning news, you would think that was true. So. I didn't even expect that. That was at the end of this tweet, but I got there. So the part I was going to make fun of is that CNN has found a way to make the coronavirus sexist except in the wrong direction. The coronavirus. Let me pause for a moment. I feel some swearing coming because there are some things that just can't be expressed within it. Am I right? There's some things you just need some swearing. Here would be an example. CNN saying that the coronavirus is worse for women in many ways. But did you know cnn, that it's fucking killing men? It's fucking killing them. They're fucking dying, dying, dead, fucking dead. That's a little bit worse than having a job during the coronavirus pandemic that you love and has meaning and is helping people. Yeah, it's risky. It's very risky. And believe me, the entire civilization is in your debt. If you're a health care worker, be you male or female or whatever you want to be, I'm cool with everything. Whatever you want to be. Society Owes you a debt and we feel it, we get it. So not minimizing any of that. And if women are the majority of that, yeah, they're definitely taking on a big role, not minimizing that, and we appreciate it immensely. But the coronavirus is fucking killing men. It's fucking killing men by much larger numbers than women. It's not really a woman problem. It's kind of a man problem because it's fucking killing men as opposed to giving them a good paying job with great meaning. That is good for society and we have great appreciation for the people doing it. Cnn, could you become more ridiculous? I don't think so. So I put a question out this morning about hydroxychloroquine and the question I asked was, are there any countries that are using it in a widespread manner giving it to people early at the first symptoms? This is a key part. First symptoms and not getting a good result. And so I put that on the Internet and people had some suggestions, but the only one I heard that's a maybe, but I think this one doesn't fit either. So do me a fact check on this, will you? India. So my understanding is that India is not doing well in terms of deaths. You know, their death rates high, but that they also are a major producer of hydroxychloroquine and it is part of their regimen to give it to people early. Now, I think these facts are true. They make a lot of it, they have a lot of it. And that at the moment they're recommending that you give it to people early. And I think it's also true that their death rate is relatively high. Are all those things true? Here's what I think might not be true. I think they only just started the hydroxychloroquine as a recommendation and I would imagine that I don't know what the healthcare situation is in India, but probably there's a big disparity. So here's my question to you. You can tell me on Twitter because I probably won't see it in the comments. Is the India example a clean example? Because I think maybe the timing isn't right. Maybe we wouldn't see it until later, or are they not giving the zinc or what percentage of people are getting it at all? Because just because it's recommended and just because they have a lot of it doesn't mean that most people are getting it right. So that part I need a fact check on. So if you have a different country in which you can point to where this is the example we're looking for, and let me be clear about this, we're looking for a country that has been widespread giving, you know, for a long time, been giving hydroxychloroquine early at first symptoms. That's the important part. Also have a bad result. In other words, their death rate is high, their outcomes are bad. So find that for me. Find that for me. Now, something interesting is happening with the education field. Now, y' all know, everybody's. Y', all, y' all know. Why did I become. Did I just become Southern, like, accidentally? Well, y', all, y' all know, you all know that everybody's talking about education, how it will change and it's too expensive and there'll be more remote learning, etc. But here's the interesting thing. I've been talking about a new model for, you know, creating like a special major and having it more of a market situation where anybody can add components to the class. I've been talking about that idea for four years, I think, in public a number of times. I actually, at one point I had investors who were going to put a lot of money into it, and I was going to be part of that and try to build it out several years ago, but I couldn't really get traction. Everybody who heard the idea would say, yeah, that's a pretty good idea. But it wasn't really connecting, you know, it wasn't like turning into something that anybody wanted to act upon. But now when I put that idea out there, as I did in my recent Periscope, there's a completely different acceptance of it. And I don't know if you noticed that. So it's an idea that in its fullest form has existed for three or four years, and I've been talking about it in public, just doesn't get any purchase. And then in the last few days, boom, lots of interest. Now, I've told you that the way you can identify a good idea from a bad idea is that good ideas and good content make people act with their body, not just say, in their mind or in their voice. You know, say, oh, that's a good idea. That doesn't mean anything. Their thoughts are meaningless. Their words are usually meaningless too, because that's easy. Talking is easy. But if somebody sits down to write a long email or message to me, that's quite a commitment. And a number of people did that. People who were course designers, people working in education, people who had some other visibility on something. A whole bunch of people started writing me, putting their body into it. You know, their fingers and their minds and sitting in a chair for 45 minutes, because these are. These were pretty detailed messages. I was getting long ones. So something has changed now. We've talked about, you know, coronavirus will change everything, blah, blah, blah. But certainly it's changing how we think radically. I would say that the way we're thinking now, just about everything, you know, the whole way civilization is organized, we're thinking about it completely differently now. And that difference is what unlocks the Golden Age. Because until we shook the box, and I guess it was the coronavirus that shook the box for us, until the box got shaken, all the things that were sort of ossified and they've been going like this forever, it just was too hard to change them all. It seemed like just maybe too big a deal. There's too much tradition and inertia and heading the same direction. Colleges, colleges are colleges. But, man, when you shake the box and suddenly you can say, all right, start from scratch. If I were going to design education from scratch, what would it look like? And only now can that thought get some traction. The thought of just starting over and just say, let's throw out all the assumptions, just start from scratch. What would it look like if you built it today with the tools that we have today, instead of evolving it from when we didn't have the Internet, for example? So I feel like the zeitgeist, the mood is ready for some big, big changes. And looking forward to that. Here's one of the coolest suggestions that I've gotten. This is from Benjamin Cost Kost, who makes this suggestion to me on the Locals platform. So if you don't know, over@locals.com I have a little space for subscribers in which they can send me messages more easily. And I promise to read them because they're paying money to send me messages. And there's extra content that you won't see anyplace else. So one of the ideas that Benjamin has, I just love. I love the thinking about this. I don't know that it's practical. You can decide for me, right? Make up your own mind. But just think of the creativity of this. And that's the thing. I'm seeing people thinking everything from the ground up. Just look at the creativity of this. So instead of paying people for plasma, which I think you're going to see a lot of, as people have recovered, are donating their blood plasma for the antibodies for other people, so we already know there are going to be all these plasma collection centers. I think that's guaranteed they'll be everywhere. And here's the suggestion. Instead of paying people for plasma, we why not exchange actual health screening and health care for the plasma? And Benjamin was noting that he's donated plasma a number of times, I think for money. And each time he donates it, they screen his blood. And he listed. I won't list them because it's his medical situation, but he listed a number of things that they found in his blood that were markers for something that he could take care of, you know, oh, you need a little more iron. I guess I could mention that one. That's not too dangerous. Need a little more iron. Well, he didn't know that. So then he could go modify his diet or whatever, get a little more iron. And while testing your blood doesn't get you to something like health care, they do it anyway. So apparently they're testing your blood routinely. Would it be that hard to say? All right, you don't have health care that you can afford, but if you donate plasma on a regular basis, we can use it for a variety of things. Maybe we're testing your DNA, maybe we're doing some studies. We'll do whatever we want. Maybe there's some antibodies, you know, something so you can use it for whatever you want. In return, you get free health care. And I thought to myself, that idea, I don't think it's fully workable. But don't you love the creativity that's in that? Because it's an existing thing, so, you know, it already works. They already do the blood screening, and it's already given at least one person useful health advice. Could you expand on that? All right, I'll just put that out there as the example of the kind of amazingness that is ahead of us in the golden age. I've told you before that whenever I have a new idea, not this one, I'm changing topics. Now, whenever I have a new idea, I always get two responses, and it always makes me laugh. If you're not a creative person by nature or by trade, then you haven't seen this as much as I have. So you've watched me enough. You know how many ideas I produce. Most of them are bad, but there's always two responses. One of them is, that will never work, and here's all the reasons why it can never work. And almost every time the other response is, somebody's already successfully doing it. If you haven't seen that cycle as many times as I have, it completely changes your idea of what's possible, because literally Everything that people say is impossible, it's almost always being done, somebody's actually doing it. So my ideas are not that original, but I don't know it. When I come up with them, I just say, well, it seems like this would be a good idea. And you find out it's not original. Somebody's already doing it. Here's the perfect example. Approximately. I'm not good with time and dates, but I think about 20 years ago I tried to start a company with a friend who was an engineer and I had the idea, he was the engineer and we were going to build this thing. The idea was a special kind of universal remote control that if you as the homeowner had given permission to the delivery company, they could program you in and they would be able to open your garage door just to deliver stuff to your home and then they could close your garage door. Now, in my assumption that there would be video cameras so that you, the homeowner would be able to see exactly what happened, you know, they're not coming in your garage and stealing your lawnmower, leaving, because your video camera is on all the time as soon as the garage door opens. So it was a system that would allow that. Now 20 years goes by and of course everybody I told that idea said it won't work. Literally everybody I told that idea to said, no, Scott. Privacy, security, privacy. No way people are going to let you open their garage door when they're not home. I see people saying that Ring does that, which is probably true, but I just noticed that Amazon does it. It's a program called Key. So I have a certain kind of garage door opener that allows me to control it by WI fi or through the Internet specifically. And my garage door opener I just noticed on the app says it works with Amazon. So I can actually tie it to Amazon and have Amazon, not with a special remote, but presumably with an app, open my garage door. So somebody says, Amazon bought Ring. Oh, did they? Did Amazon buy Ring? Well, anyway, my point is it's another example of something that everybody told me couldn't possibly work except it's already a product and the biggest company in the world is producing it. Here's another good thing coming. Robert Scoble is writing about this on the Internet, wrote a blog and he says that Apple is working on lidar glasses. Lidar is like a different technology than radar. Lidar uses light, so it shoots lighted stuff. I don't know if it produces a visible light. Probably not. I think it's probably non visible light. I don't know too much about it, but it shoots light at things and then it measures the reflection or something and it can determine distance. So the idea is that instead of having your glasses understand everything about your environment, the LIDAR would allow it to look for QR codes. And if your store had enough QR codes on your products on your shelf, you could walk into a store with your glasses on and at very low power requirements because it's not doing much, it's just doing lidar. The LIDAR could reach out, it could ping the QR codes and basically draw a map of the of the room while you're walking through it. And it could produce, potentially it could produce enhanced reality stuff. So things would appear in your glasses to give you more information about the product as you looked at it. Now in theory, says Robert Scoble, you could get to the point where everything is touchless. You could just walk into a store and you could simply look at a product. Its information would pop up and you could say some version of Buy it for me and you wouldn't have to take it off the shelf. Maybe you can see a video in your glasses of it working instead of picking up the box. Maybe you never have to touch it. The video plays in your glasses, you say buy it and you walk out. That's it. Maybe it even gets shipped to your house. Perhaps you've never touched it even once. Also, I'm sure that point of sale buying, you know, will probably have something to do with these glasses as well. So contactless shopping seems like it's coming. It's coming. Here's something that I just realized today. You know my book how to Fail at Almost Everything in Still Win Big. And I introduced the ideas of systems better than goals and talent stacks and managing your energy and stuff like that. I just realized that those ideas have now been in three different best selling books. One of them was mine, but now two other books that are also best sellers are talking about them prominently, giving me credit, which is great of course, but they give me credit. But it's now in three best selling books and it's fairly important parts of three best selling books. And you know, I've always, I always said that years ago when Dilbert started working out, I always had this feeling that Dilbert would not be how I was remembered. I didn't know what I'd be remembered for if anything, but I didn't think it would be Dilbert. I feel like Dilbert will end about the same time I stop drawing it. But the idea of the Talent stack and systems over goals and managing your energy, not your time appear to be really really sticky. Like really really sticky. More than I had even hoped for. So. The people that I'm mentioning mentioned me specifically. So Atomic Habits, for example, I learned that I haven't read the book but I understand that he mentions systems better than goals and mentions me as as a creator of that and also Tools for Titans Tim Ferriss book which is a compilation of a lot of other people's suggestions and ideas. But I wonder how many other best selling books that's going to be in as. That's just a reference. All right, I promised you some swearing this would be the place that that happens. But first, has anyone identified the mass graves for all the people who died from their lupus and malaria medications? Because they must exist, right? Because we've been told the hydroxychloroquine, especially if it's used recklessly and not under doctor's orders, can have deadly, deadly consequences and side effects. And given the millions and millions and millions and millions of people who have been using it for lupus and malaria and still do, I would assume there are mass graves. Are they hiding them? Where are they hiding those mass graves? Oh, that's right. It's all fucking bullshit. There are no mass graves. No, that's only something that the poorly educated believe in. Speaking of the poorly educated, I got a tweet today, a few tweets from a gentleman named David Neewert. N E I W E R T David Neewert. He lists himself as the following. He's an author of a book called Alt the Rise of the Radical Right in the Age of Trump. He's also a staff writer, had been or is for the Daily cas, and a contributor to the SPLC Center. Yes, the Southern Poverty Law Center. So that's who he is. He's written books about the alt right being bad and he works for Daily Kos and the splc. So he tweeted at me. So apparently he singled me out for this tweet. And he tweets at me the story of the President golfing. And there was something about him taking hydroxychloroquine. And this fine gentleman, David Neibert, tweets this at me, he says, hoping that all the Trump fans gorging themselves on this stuff feel better now that they know they've been conned by the con artist, meaning Trump. But they'll keep on rationalizing it hysterically like Ottadams says. Now I ask you this. Most of you have Been watching me for a while, and I've talked a lot about hydroxychloroquine. Would you say that this is an accurate statement of what I've been doing? Rationalizing it hysterically? Does that sound like an accurate description of what I've been doing? Because what I've been doing is telling you that there's no more than a 30, 40% chance that it works at all. I've been telling you that there are zero reliable studies. Is that. Does that sound like hysterically rationalizing it when I say often and clearly there are no credible studies to support that it works? And indeed, if I had to bet, I would bet against it. Does that sound irrational now? Because I understand the concept of risk management. No. No, I'm not a doctor. Is that what you heard? Did you hear me say that? I was a medical professional? Let me say it again. I understand risk management. If that came into your head as he thinks he's a scientist, maybe there's something wrong with your head. If that came into your head as, oh, he's a doctor now. Oh, cartoonist thinks he's a doctor. Well, maybe the problem happens somewhere in the skull area of your fucking brain. Because it's not anything I ever said. I've said, if you're working with your doctor and you think maybe hydroxychloroquine works, we don't know. There's some anecdotal evidence. You think there might be a 10% chance that makes a difference, but the odds of it killing you are very, very, very, very low. Maybe you, plus your doctor and your specific situation might say that the risk management decision could go the way that the doctor and his. The way the president and his physician went. They could be right, they could be wrong. Of course, there's the question of whether the zinc is part of the question or not. So there's somebody who thinks that I specifically have been rationalizing hysterically. Here's how I interpret that. Apparently I'm saying things that don't agree with him. Then he doesn't like it, and he doesn't know what to do about it. And so I sort of accused him of being in the poorly educated segment of the population. He didn't like that. He didn't like being called poorly educated because I tried to. Tried to help him a little bit. And he suggested that maybe I should look to the World Health Organization because it has, quote, more credibility than your sources, meaning your being me. So this is somebody who's smart enough to write a book. I mean, you have to be pretty smart to write a book that gets published, right? But he's clearly in the poorly educated segment because his news has failed him. And he actually thought that sending this tweet in public would not embarrass him. Think about this. What kind of fucking news is he watching that he thinks this tweet would not embarrass him? He says the World Health Organization has more credibility than my sources. No, the World Health Organization does not have more credibility than my sources. And my sources are fucking nothing. Nothing. And the World Health Organization has less credibility than my sources, which are fucking nothing. Nothing. Was I not the first public figure probably, that you heard saying that we should get close, travel with China way before the World Health Organization did? Who was right? Who was right? Who was right? Me. Me. When the World Health Organization and the Surgeon General and every expert on earth told you that masks were. Were bad for you, who was probably the first public figure who said, I would like to say that every health official in the world is full of fucking shit because that's the dumbest fucking thing I ever heard? Obviously masks work. You don't have to be a fucking expert to know that it stops the droplets. It obviously fucking works. Who was right? Was it the cartoonist or was it the World Health Organization? It was the cartoonist. It was the cartoonist. Does that make me a medical expert? No, it makes me knowing absolutely nothing about medical stuff and still far superior to the World Health Organization on this topic. There's no questioning that these are public facts. They are public facts. Was I the person who said that maybe the coronavirus does not spread from person to person as Wuhan was being closed down? That's right. As Wuhan was being closed down, the World Health Organization was saying maybe it doesn't spread from person to person. I didn't say that. So I think I'm ahead of them on that. So I don't know how you could come up to the. How could you say in public that the World Health Organization has more credibility than my sources, which are zero. Because all the evidence suggests the opposite. Unless you're in the poorly educated group that doesn't watch all the news. So I responded with this tweet. No, you dumb fuck. I don't get my medical advice from politicians. I also don't trust the World Health Organization, which, as I have pointed out, has no credibility. I do look at doctors and my view is consistent with them. It is. Your views are not on a risk management level. So here is a guy who doesn't even know that his opinions on this stuff are not compatible with doctors. He doesn't know that this is like the most, the most talked about topic in the news for three months. And he's so uninformed. He thinks that he should say these things to me in public and that they would make sense. I just tweeted, just before I got on here, an article that you really have to read. Now, I don't like to recommend so strongly that you read long form articles unless they're really good. Okay? So trust me on this. There was a whole bunch of very credentialed doctors and scientists in Brazil who wrote along, sort of an open letter, if you will, in which they ask this question, who gets to speak for science? It's a really good question, right? Because all of these experts are saying, well, we're all experts, we're all medical doctors, we're all scientists. And we collectively, the people who signed this letter, think that the hydroxychloroquine, if it's given the right way, not the wrong way, which is the way it's been studied where they overdose the patients with deadly amounts when they're near death anyway. Not that way. How about Scott is not a doctor, but even I would have not given incredibly high doses of a drug that hadn't been tested to people near death and expect that it's not going to have some bad outcomes. Even I wouldn't do that. I'm not a doctor. So this large list of doctors in Brazil are saying, stop saying that science says hydroxychloroquine is a bad idea. Stop saying it because we are science and we're not saying it. We're not saying it works. So let me say this clearly, because Dumb David new Art, who's obviously a racist because he contributes to the SPLC Center. I don't know if you could be a contributor without being a racist. Is that even possible? Because most of the SPLC stuff is just racist nonsense. So I'm assuming he's a racist just because of his association, but I assume he assumes that about me. So. And by the way, I assume it just for fun, because who knows what's in other people's heads. But the association, I mean, come on, if you're associating with a racist illegitimate group, don't expect me not to think that you're one of them. So this is a really good question. When anybody, such as David the Dumbfuck, says that the I or anyone else is not compatible with science, what does that exactly mean? And as the letter Points out even saying that is a misunderstanding of what the science is. Because the moment you say science says something, it's like you've also signaled that you don't understand what science is. It's a lot of people disagreeing and testing and crawling toward the truth. It's not one opinion. Science is not an opinion. It's a lot of different people doing a lot of different stuff. All right, so this was my first test. You might ask yourself, why did I not simply block dumbfuck David Neewert? And the reason I didn't block him is that I wanted to. Well, I had several purposes. One is that I wanted to test the poorly educated kill shot because it's. I think it's got a lot of power. Because calling people poorly educated when they think they're the educated ones, I mean, that's how they come into the conversation. I'm the educated one. Let me school the ignorant savages on the other side. When they come into it and you call them poorly educated and then you back it up, you're poorly educated. Here's a fact. You don't know you're poorly educated. Here's another fact you don't know you're poorly educated. Have you noticed I know all the facts that you know, but you don't know all the facts that I know. What does that make you? Poorly educated. Poorly educated. Now, your college might have been fine, but you're obviously watching bad news sources, so. Or incomplete, let's say incomplete. So I wanted to test that kill shot. But also, I think it's instructive as a warning to others. It's a warning to others. So doing it publicly instead of just blocking them so I don't have to deal with them, it sort of puts. It's like putting a head on a post. You know, it's like, maybe you don't want to come into this. You know, maybe you don't want to trespass on this property because this property has a severed head on a post. If you see the severed head on the post, you might think, I don't want to go into that property. So part of it is a warning to others. But did you notice if you look at the exchange, and some of you might go back and look at it if you haven't seen it. I made a claim a while ago that if somebody misinterprets you on social media or anywhere else, if they misinterpret you, then they criticize their own misinterpretation. What I used to think would work is correcting their impression of my opinion. But over 63 years of life, I finally have to give up and say that has never worked once. Not once, not one single time has somebody ever misinterpreted my opinion, criticized the misinterpretation. And then when I came in and said, oh, that's not my opinion. This is actually my opinion. Not once in my whole life has anyone then said, oh, okay, I guess I read that wrong. Doesn't happen. What do they do? They change to another misperception of your idea or it gets even worse. They accuse you of not knowing your own opinion and say that they know your opinion better than you know your opinion because they. They misread something once, it just goes crazy. So you can see it in this one where I. I corrected him. So, first of all, he didn't know that I'm not alt right. I'm left to Bernie. So his first starting assumption is wrong. He didn't know that my public assumption on hydroxychloroquine is that it probably doesn't work. Said that many times in public. He doesn't know that I've said there are zero studies that are credible. Wouldn't it be great if we had some. There's some anecdotal stuff, and maybe the risk management says, give it a try, but I don't think I could be more perfectly, perfectly compatible with the doctors. My opinion is somebody says Flynn was not unmasked. You writers are crazy. I don't know if that let me just change the topic there, because that diverted me. Are the people on the right crazy because they found out that, oh, actually, maybe that was sarcasm. Never mind. I was going to criticize it, but I just realized it was sarcasm. Yeah, Flynn was spied on. The details don't really matter that much, do they? All right, sorry. It took me a minute to catch up to the fact that that was sarcasm. Somebody says we're trying to ignore the left of Bernie part. Let me give you all a compliment, if I may, and this is a sincere compliment. It's also a sincere appreciation of you. I am completely aware that at least 90% of my main audience doesn't agree with me on some of the most basic things. But I totally respect and appreciate the fact that you let me do this. The fact that you let me give my reasons. You know, you let me live my, you know, my version of what I think is right. I don't have to hide it from you. And I say this about the right all the time. The right is Way more open minded than the left. It's not even close. And you know, the common view is the opposite. And the thing that people get wrong is that for the right you just have to hit the basic basis. Do you love your constitution? Yes, yes, 100%. Give me some Constitution. We got to play by the same rules. Do you like the rule of law? Yes, yes. I mean, lots of mistakes and flaws, but it's a pretty good system. Yes, of course, of course I like it. Do I respect all of your opinions? Yes, totally. Even the ones I disagree with? Completely respect them. Now if I like your constitution and I respect your opinions and the rule of law, and I'm big on being an American, what do conservatives say about me? I can tell you that I don't believe in God, which I tell you all the time, but as long as I have full respect for your belief system, which I do, I think religion is far more positive than negative. It's like any tool, you could misuse it, but used properly, it's an amazing thing and helps people in their life. I'm all for it. But do you judge me? Do you judge me for not being a believer? Not really. I mean, if you're doing it privately, it's just in your own mind. I've had zero people just think about this, think about, think about. If I were to go over to the left and say anything out of the ordinary, anything that wasn't their belief, I would be canceled in about like a hot second for just having a different opinion on the left. But I could go over the right and say the most basic disagreeing thing that you could ever think of, which is, you know, I don't believe in God. Does anybody care? No. Because Constitution, because freedom, because freedom of speech, freedom of thought. As long as I'm respectful, boom, you're fine, right? As long as I respect you, it just comes back. It's that simple. So that's something that the left completely misses about the right is how phenomenally open minded they are. As long as you hit the basis, if you don't hit the bases, you got a big trouble, Right? Like you. I could be, I could be anti gun. I'm not, but I could be. And you'd still watch this. As long as I showed my work, as long as I respected your opinion and as long as we both agreed that the Constitution says that you can have a gun, right. I think everybody would be okay with that. As long as I, as long as I was, you know, not trying to fool you or con you, or anything. It was just my opinion you'd be fine with that. So. And this is so not true on the left. I mean, it's not even a little bit true. So it's weird that I could find more of a home over here because you're more open minded. So that's a compliment to you. I think you deserved it. And I'm going to end here on that positive. Thought I saw that there are 10 vaccines being tested. 10 vaccines being tested? Yeah. Somebody's talking about my abortion stance, which is basically that I should stay out of it. Yeah. I think you even respect that somebody says the Pope had is disrespectful. Now, you know, I think you have to look at the intention. There's no such thing as a disrespectful hat. A hat can't be disrespectful. It's all about what I mean when I put it on. When I put it on. It's just for fun. It's not disrespecting anybody. I would not want you to take it that way. All right, that's. That's it for now. And I will talk to you in the morning, you know where.