Episode 1531 Scott Adams - Now!

oh well ladies and gentlemen i'm running a little bit late this morning so you're seeing the unprepared version of me watch me print my notes and close my blackout shutters and pull up my comments without even missing a beat because that's what i do all right oh damn it i'm not gonna be able to do what i want to do all right hold on locals people gonna make a quick adjustment here and then everything will be cool well people on youtube you're seeing the show before the show it's the one that usually only the local subscribers say i can't reach my notes i have to unplug hold on you know what i say about quality totally overrated yeah i could try to make this a quality program but who would want to watch that really i think you'd rather watch me struggle and and fail let's see let's see in one moment i'm going to be up and running here how many of you found empty shelves today uh god damn it okay for some reason that didn't work hold on again i'm having a technical technical difficulty tweet fail to send for some reason i can't tweet i wonder what that would be is twitter down um weirdly if i can't tweet i can't see your comments oh and now i'm all up here all right well i'm gonna have to keep uh this on this perspective wow your local store had no spaghetti are you kidding me how the hell do you run out of spaghetti that's pretty bad all right so i know why you're here and something that has to do with the simultaneous sip and all you need is a couple of glasses of tango chelsea stein canteen juggle flash vessel of any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine of the day the thing that makes everything better except my punctuality is called the simultaneous sip and watch it improve your antibodies now go um my favorite story of the day was in the huffington post the huffington post ah antibodies yeah and the huffington post reports that uh this is the headline daniel craig you know him he plays james bond prefers going to gay bars and you probably can't guess why that's right daniel craig he prefers going to gay bars and you probably can't guess why i think i can i'm going to take that challenge and i think i'm going to guess why he goes to gay bars well i think i'll keep my guess to myself but i've got a i've got a hypothesis why a good-looking actor would go to a gay bar time and time again with his gay friend often um the article was written by in huffington post by ron dicker d-i-c-k-e-r ron dicker so i don't know maybe you could meet this challenge too why would a actor go to a gay bar i don't know i'm stumped i assume it's because the drinks were low-cost maybe better parking i don't know could be a lot of reasons have i told you that following the money always predicts now here's everybody knows that if you follow the money people tend to do whatever is in their financial interest right no no surprise there but it also works and i don't know why where it shouldn't work let me give you an example uh remember the story about the elk that had a tire that somehow it got a tire around his neck but then its antlers grew so couldn't get the tire off so after years of people sighting this elk they i guess they tranquilized it and they removed the tire but the way they removed the tire is by removing the the elk's antlers now that's not a big deal because antlers regrow every season but people ask well wouldn't it make more sense to cut the tire you know why why wouldn't you cut the tire just leave the antlers and i got the best the best answer to that from grover norquist you all you might recognize that name all of the news junkies know that name grover norquist so he's uh he's most famous for uh being against extra taxes yeah he's the low tax guy so we follow each other on twitter and uh grover saw that story and in answer to the question why the tire was removed instead of the no why the antlers were removed instead of the tires grover tweets they could not sell the tire for as much as antlers they could not sell the tire for as much as antlers i thought to myself well that's probably true they probably didn't throw away the antlers didn't they because it seems like do people buy them for i don't i guess they do right people buy antlers is that a thing now here's here's the funny part i don't personally believe that that had anything to do with why they removed it the way they did but watch how often it predicts you you'll see a situation in which there's no way the money makes any difference it's like a big psychological decision or it's political or it's health related but it's definitely not about the money but coincidentally the decisions will always be in the same direction as the money even if it's not much and even if the other decisions are other variables are way bigger it's just something to watch for let's say for fun i i will not assert that it works in some statistically meaningful way i just know that my observation is it always works i assume that's confirmation bias it couldn't always work right that can't be true it can't always work but it looks like it i mean it's hard to find any maybe you just don't notice the exceptions that could be the case maybe the exceptions are just boring and they don't they don't make even notice all right last night i'm told tucker carlson had a segment about the auckland i think is a professor who did a study and and determined that the havana syndrome the so-called secret microwave sonic weapon there was injuring diplomats in our embassies probably was nothing but mass hysteria now how many of you saw that how many of you watched tucker's episode about the havana syndrome possibly not being real a lot of you saw it here's the funny thing i record tucker every night you know i just i have an app that works with my comcast slash xfinity and i recorded that show every night as long as well as you know gupfield and the five so so those are three shows that i record every day the only show that doesn't have audio on my recordings is this one the ones i recorded yesterday are all fine and in fact the show before tucker's was fine like it has a little lead in it records a like a minute before the show starts and that has audio as soon as tucker starts the audio goes off and i thought to myself oh darn it's my device so i went to a different device same thing the the app is called stream and it's part of the xfinity the cable company where i live so it's the cable companies app so here's the weird part there's nothing i've wanted to see more than that episode because it agreed with me right so so yesterday uh you know i heard that tucker had something that doubted the that there was a weapon now most of you know i think i'm the only public figure who said on day one of that whole embassy of anna syndrome thing that's it's mass hysteria and there's no weapon so the fact that there would be a major segment on a major news channel even an opinion show was really really interesting to me because i have skin in the game why is it that the only thing i can't play no i looked for it on youtube and i look for the clips and it doesn't exist now here's the interesting thing part of the story and i don't know if tucker talked about this but part of the the story whether talker talked about it or not is that uh the media has been reporting this is true that there's some kind of weapon maybe probably allegedly in nbc and cnn uh is uh nbc has been part of that reporting and as you know if you follow glenn greenwald especially nbc is often accused of being the the cia's captured network meaning that nbc news basically reports what the cia wants them to report now i'm not saying that's true i'm saying that's that's the uh that's the allegation and you see people like glenn greenwald back up the allegation quite well so i'm saying it's an allegation with a lot of evidence that's all i know so you've got an nbc still trying to sell this thing as maybe some kind of a russian weapon which sounds exactly like this something the cia would want you to believe if they want to put pressure on russia and they need the public to back them and i'm asking you this what are the odds that that one thing that the cia doesn't want you to see allegedly right we don't we can't confirm that but what are the odds that the one thing that the cia doesn't want you to see also is the one thing that can't be seen it's not anywhere else can somebody find a clip of that just that segment of the auckland professor talking about the havana syndrome and and tweeted at me because i wonder if it exists i wonder if it's already been scrubbed from the internet is that a coincidence because you have to ask yourself is the one thing that you know the cia doesn't want you to see when i say you know it let's say you're let's say you're highly confident we can't know anything in today's world so certainly any absolute confidence of anything is ridiculous in 2021 but it feels like it just a coincidence that that's the one thing i can't watch i know probably a coincidence let me let me say clearly probably a coincidence but the fact that i have to even ask the question is very disturbing isn't it like why do i even have to doubt that that happened naturally just a technical problem i don't know i hate that i have to ask the question how many of you think taiwan is at real risk of uh china attacking militarily in the comments in the comments how many of you think there's a real risk of a military attack and let's say in the next two years next two years risk of a military attack i'm seeing some yeses and some low low percentages like five percent um okay i yeah so somebody here pedantically is saying yes there's a risk okay technically technically there's a risk right so i would say that's a given that there's a risk it's just so small so cnn had a uh opinion piece on this i thought was pretty good i forget who wrote it but the point of it is that there's not really any indication that china is too serious about a military attack and i saw a map of the the incursions which was very interesting because i'd never seen it before it was some context about all these military planes that china is putting into taiwan's airspace now when you heard that what did your mind give you as a picture when you heard that chinese warplanes lots of them were suddenly penetrating taiwan airspace what did your brain give you as a picture for that like what was the little the visual that you got you gave it to yourself because you didn't see a visual but what did it look like did it look like planes flying directly over taiwan probably not because you're sophisticated viewers of the news and you said to yourself no no not over the land they were over the airspace meaning that over the ocean around taiwan that china claims as their own right i saw a picture of that incursion let me show you what it looked like now my picture is not to scale and it's not the same dimensions but i'll give you the idea imagine if you will that this napkin is the space that taiwan claims for their airspace let's say taiwan is right in the middle and occupies maybe i don't know 20 of the space but it's in the middle here maybe even 10 where do you think the all the chinese uh incursions were they're all on this corner right here that's it maybe a little bit more that's it it was in this weird little corner which taiwan when it draws its airspace around itself it declares its own airspace so i don't think it's an international standard it's just taiwan saying hey this is our space and china just flies directly out and they cross this little corner of the ocean that taiwan claims as their airspace how many of the flights were in all of this other area none none they were all just this little corner all china did was clip this corner but they did a lot you know hundreds of times but just this little corner that's it if they had flown here like just outside this little corner we wouldn't be talking about it but because they clipped the corner we're talking about it now what gives taiwan the right to this little this little this little piece right here the only piece that was violated what gives taiwan that right nothing nothing taiwan just claimed the right they just said hey this is ours and and i looked at you know my example is bad because it's uh symmetrical but the actual airspace is more i don't know it's more like weird shaped something like this so the corner that china is clipping off is sort of the extended corner it's the one that looks a little furthest from the island itself am i wrong that if you had seen that picture from the start and known that the violation is the most trivial violation that they could get away with china is violating their airspace of course but in the most trivial way according to the the picture and i had never seen the picture until today yeah it's still provocative etc but the people who seem to be smart on this topic don't think there's any real risk it looks like it may be for internal politics because there's some big chinese meeting coming up so it's probably just for internal reasons so i think you can stop worrying about that one right away um well finally the company is the country is coming together because the people who are against vaccination mandates are gloriously gloriously all over the map so you got your you know black lives matter you got your christian conservatives you got your police officers you got your teachers so you got your democrats you got your republicans i can't think of another issue that unified the country this much can you airline pilots thank you yeah it's uh it's weirdly i want to feel i want to join the rest of you and feel anxious and bad about the division in the country because we're all talking about it but i'm not feeling it like i know it's there i'm not denying the division in the country i'm just saying that a lot of this stuff looks like the normal and maybe even preferred evolution of thought meaning the fact that the government took control during the emergency wouldn't you want that don't you want the government to take a firm control even if they make mistakes it's your best bet during an emergency i can see somebody says no well i like that you're consistent so i appreciate the people saying no i don't want that i don't want the government to ever take control in any situation that i feel that's a that's a legitimate opinion and i won't i won't criticize it because it's consistent i imagine that those saying that just always say that so if you're consistent i support you so let me just put it in my opinion in my opinion because obviously a lot of you disagree in my opinion the government needs to take control in military matters and and maybe a big crisis like this did they do it well that's a separate question but i think it's your best bet now i'll accept that you disagree with me on that but it's only good if the if the people can take it back the people need to regain you know grab it back and of course the government when it takes power it doesn't like to give it up at all we know that right but we have plenty of examples of let's say hurricanes where the government took power during the hurricane as an emergency and as soon as they were done they got out of there as soon as they could because they didn't want to be there grabbing any power they just wanted to do the job and leave and what i see is as these this anti-vax coalition which isn't organized in any sense but sort of a informally you know natural coalition without organization i feel good about it i feel good that there's a balance of power the government took control um most of you disagree but i thought well it was our best bet even if it is it's not ideal but it might have been our best bet that's how you get the vaccines etc but i love the fact that the country is starting to push back and i'm not even you know it doesn't even matter that i'm on the side of the pushback people or not i like that they exist it's a good it's a good reminder to the government who's in charge so the more people who resist and the more actively they resist i'm not saying i'm on their side or not on their side they can make their own decisions what i say is i like living in a country where it's happening i like living in a country where the government can take control and then the people can say you know just about now is when you need to be giving it back and they won't take no for an answer that's not all bad right it's an uncomfortable place to be we're not happy where we are we'd like to be in a better place i get all that but i like that our system allows this constructive tension between government and the people and so far i still see the people having the power it might take a while it's not going to be instant but i think the people will get what they want i believe the mandates will not stand what do you think do you think the mandates will stand i think they'll stand in some places but i don't imagine that the people will let them stand for long and certainly not everywhere yeah i think there'll be too much too much pushback eventually so i've got this question whether we have a supply chain problem or the simulation has been proven when i go to the local local grocery store where i live the shelves are basically full right if you look down the row of shelves it looks full with one exception you'll see this long row of products and then there'll be this little hole in the shelf no more than this big in a gigantic line everything's full but just this little bit that little hole represents the product i came for and i'm like oh crap the one thing i want is the only thing missing so i go to the next aisle to look for the other thing i'm looking for and there's only one thing missing and it's the damn thing i want now i noticed this first during the pandemic christina asked me for some like very specific things a specific brand of soda which literally disappeared during the pandemic it doesn't exist anymore as soon as she started saying this is the only soda i want it just disappeared it was dr pepper no caffeine and also diet just disappeared i think that's that's what it was and likewise she had a you know a food product that was on a shelf with all the food products were there except that one that one food just disappeared and never came back now is that the am i supposed to believe that the one thing i look for is the thing that's missing here's the other possibility so one is that's just a coincidence and it's confirmation bias and i don't notice the other things that are missing you know just normal psychological phenomenon but it's also very consistent with us being in a simulation here's why because there's nobody else buying food if this is a simulation i'm the only one buying food and everything else is an illusion right so the npcs don't buy food they just look like it when you're shopping they look like they're buying food but as soon as you leave they empty the carts and put it all back on the shelves so here's my point if the simulation has a bug the only thing that's going to be missing is the food that you buy because it's your simulation the generic food that's the background food that you'll never buy is just there to create scenery it never changed and there was no bug in it so the only thing changed was the your specific food now i'm not too serious uh jen says oh my god scott where is your brain gone simulation theory is such an illusion now jen do you know that uh elon musk has the same opinion i do about the simulation and the actual scientists and philosophers who know what they're talking about do it's accepted science in the sense that it's accepted as a serious alternative uh understanding of reality doesn't mean it's true but it is completely accepted by smart people as well maybe all right by the way i just did that one for fun i'm not too serious about the supply chain thing uh trump has uh said some new provocative things about arizona uh which i will not tell you are true okay so i'm going to tell you a bunch of things that trump says but uh don't don't imagine that i say any of this is true is that clear i don't know that it's untrue i don't have an opinion on it true or untrue but we'll talk about in a moment so these are trump's claims um talking about uh a couple of precincts in pubert pima pima arizona and apparently there are great irregularities there trump and others have claimed and trump says they overplayed their hand and got caught two precincts in pima had over 100 turnout for mail-in ballots which is impossible and 40 precincts had over 97 returned which basically impossible um and that if you add these things together the irregularities is more than the amount enough the margin to win turn a turnout rates of 99 and 100 is what you get in a third world country blah blah blah so and he shows a uh a graph in his statement now the graph that he showed to demonstrate that there was a certain time of night when all the ballots turned in a different direction i think it was dr shiva's his analysis so here's my question why is trump complaining about arizona irregularities and not using information that came from the arizona audit wasn't the arizona audit on his side what am i missing in the story can somebody connect the dots for me how could it be that dr shiva has this solid incontrovertible evidence that trump is putting forward now how could dr shiva have that but the people who were certainly looking for that the arizona audit they didn't have that they didn't have that or they didn't believe it enough to put that forward as a claim a different county is that why was it so so pima wasn't part of the maricopa audit okay that's the answer thank you remember i was telling you yesterday that this model that we have where i talk out loud and you correct me in real time it is effectively like a different form of intelligence because in real time you just basically fixed my brain because i was i couldn't connect why there was a disconnect there it was just a different county so that's the answer okay now if you didn't know anything except what i just told you and that describes most of us if you didn't know anything but what i just told you trump makes these claims dr shiva seems to be the source of some some part of it and it claims more than you know something close to 100 turnout which would be impossible how credible are these claims go don't tell me whether they're true or false because you don't know we don't know if they're true or false we don't know if true or false had changed the election only is it credible meaning is that the kind of thing you would be inclined to believe because of its nature and maybe the source and everything you know about life credible or not credible i'm just looking at your answers and i see not interestingly i thought most of you are going to say yes i really thought you were going to say yes interesting i'm kind of uh shocked i'm blown away so i think most of you are are good with the difference between what is credible versus what is true often you can't know what's true but you can tell if the claim is credible all right so some of you think it's credible some of you think it's not um i told you at the beginning of the process of the election and the audits that 95 of everything you see about a claim of irregularity without even knowing what the claims would be before they even happened i told you 95 would be bunk was i right how was my prediction that 95 of the specific claims not not the general idea that there was a fraud i'm not talking about the general idea i'm talking about specific claims i said 95 of them would be false maybe 100 but then at least 95 of them would be false how close was i one of my best predictions because no matter what you think about whether the election was fair or not overall would you agree with me at this point that the specific claims have 90 95 well you could say 100 been debunked true true or not i think that's one of my best best predictions of all time because again i'm the only person saying that that i that i know of i can't think of anybody else who said no 95 of everything you hear is going to be wrong he only provided data not claims how are you measuring this i'm not measuring it with any science i'm just saying that i haven't seen any claims that have been confirmed yet so predicting that 95 of them or more would not be confirmed seems to be pretty close to the mark no all right so let's keep an eye on that that's kind of fun um there's something happening here that's really interesting now i might i think some of you are going to imagine i've changed my opinion when you hear this next part because on twitter today i think i saw at least three people uh hallucinating my opinion and telling me that you know it's about time i came to the right opinion because i was so wrong before to which i say i never had that opinion you thought i had i never had that opinion so some of you are going to have that experience in a moment you could have an experience that you think i changed an opinion that isn't going to happen but see if you feel like it tell me in the comments if it feels like i changed my opinion just feels like that to you okay i've told you before that one way i judge the truth of things in the news is i look for a correspondence between what the science says and what direct observation tells me now if my direct observation conflicts with what the science says it doesn't mean the observation is right it means i've got questions for example science says that smoking cigarettes can give you cancer my observation is that people who have lung cancer almost always smoke cigarettes very good compatible totally compatible right science says if you take this antibiotic your bacterial infection will probably go away i take the the i take the drugs my infection goes away good science and observation pretty good they can form but science is also telling us that very few people are being injured by vaccinations science is very clear about that yes people can be injured by any kind of vaccination really any kind of medicine but they're not many not many at least compared to the number of people who are having uh covent problems but i asked on twitter because people keep telling me anecdotally that they know people who are injured by vaccinations now first first question does anybody know that somebody in their circle was injured by the vaccination do they know it or is it just that they got the vaccination then a very unusual health problem happened soon after you agree they don't know it right they just have a strong strong suspicion so strong that they they speak of it as if it's obvious right now could in and you also know that in a big country there would be coincidences like that that would look exactly like people were being injured even if they weren't don't give me the verse database because that's a different story all right so here's my opinion that you're going to think is a change of opinion but it isn't you ready um so i asked on twitter how many people personally know people who are injured by the vaccination that doesn't mean they know it means i strongly suspect it and it's a lot it's a lot the people who say i personally know people or multiple people that they believe were injured by the vaccine it's a lot so what do i have now i've got the science telling me one thing that the the side effects are rare and then i've got personal observation but it's really the third hand personal observation really all i can observe is people telling me they observed something pretty sketchy right but if i had observed it myself i would like likewise be subject to confirmation bias so so the fact that other people are telling me and maybe they have confirmation bias probably doesn't change much because if i had directly seen it myself i'd probably have the same confirmation bias so let me say this as clearly as possible and tell me if you think this is a change of my opinion there is clearly a disconnect between observation and science are you happy everybody happy how many of you have been beating me up saying scott scott scott there's so many people you know i can hear all these reports it's in the veyres database which is not confirmed stuff are you happy i too i too see what you see meaning that it is clear to me there is a disconnect between the science and the observation that does not mean the science is wrong you all get that right doesn't mean the science is wrong but it is a big honking red flag so all of you who keep telling me scott scott scott why are you missing the big red flag i'm not i'm not it's a big red flag exactly like you say but just be aware that confirmation bias is still the most likely explanation i don't know that that's the explanation again i can't be sure of that just like i can't be sure that the reports are real i can't be sure of anything at this point but yes i am completely on the side that says there's something going on here and i don't feel like we're fully informed that's different from saying you shouldn't take a vaccination right i'm not saying you shouldn't get vaccinated and i'm not saying you should i'm saying that this is one of those perfectly crafted situations accidentally crafted in which your science and your observation they've got some disconnect i would say that's true i still think it's probably confirmation bias plus probably these vaccinations have more side effects than others probably that's as far as i can go all right chris vickers blue checkmark fellow on twitter you've probably never heard of him but he's a blue check he tweeted this today he goes set a date now after that date no hospital services for the willingly unvaccinated so it's a blue check twitter person calling for unvaccinated people do not have medical care after a certain date because you know they've been warned you've been warned to which i tweeted back if we didn't need to treat citizens who injured themselves by their own choices one way or another we would we could close 90 percent of our hospitals and still have extra capacity so chris have you not noticed that most of the reasons people are in the hospital are bad choices now you think this one's a bad choice other people don't so i'll recognize that people disagree whether vaccination is a good or bad choice but that's mostly what the medical community does the entire medical community is correcting for your dumb ass mistakes i mean of course people are dying from natural causes but when was the last time you saw somebody in the hospital waiting room or the emergency room who looked perfectly fit and if they do it's a broken leg because they did something dumb right it seems to me that a tremendous amount of our entire health care budget is correcting people's dumb ass choices in life so why would you why would you call this one out to be special it's not special at all we're making a bad choice every time we wake up exercise today nah i'm busy eat less not today right smoke less okay um provocatively i asked this question is it just a coincidence that everything i try to influence goes my way is that just a coincidence probably not a hundred percent but have you ever noticed that coincidence that whenever i'm persuading on a particular topic it seems to go my way well today we learned that uh great britain has decided that nuclear energy will be the cornerstone of their plan to get to zero carbon emissions great britain is all in on nuclear power now um adam townsend had a uh podcast i think it was yesterday in which he had uh an expert from uh oklaho i think oklo a new generation nuclear startup and asked this question on my behalf so adam had solicited questions to ask these experts and one of my questions got asked and it was if america can't get nuclear if we can't get nuclear in america how can we get it in space now the expert explained that because it's space the type of energy you can use up there is not every kind of energy you couldn't burn oil or you can't use coal in space you can't run an extension cord for electricity so there's lots of things you can't do to get energy in space but the one thing you can do is nuclear in fact we already do it i think some satellites are nuclear right fact check me on that um and uh adam asks on my behalf can there be a space force without that and uh the expert said basically you need nuclear for space now once you know that you need a domestic nuclear program a good one a robust nuclear program because otherwise you give up space it's over isn't it the the question of whether america needs to go hard into nuclear energy for domestic use is completely answered by just that one fact if we give up space that's the end that's basically putting a timer on the united states to no longer be an important power you know it might be 50 years in the future but it definitely puts the timer on and says okay if you're not going nuclear you're not in space if you're not in space you're not going to rule anything on earth either you're done it's the end of your republic so i think this only could go one way and also climate change etc was screaming for an answer the answer was already there it was nuclear just people were not well informed so when people like michael schellenberger testified to the american congress and gave them information for the first time a lot of them were under-informed but once they were informed you saw that the united states congress both parties are like yeah nuclear boom so just being informed and brought up to date on what the real risks are with the newer technologies etc was enough probably so uh shellenberger for the win but did you know that uh michael schellenberger also did the same thing in great britain also brought his expertise to great britain in 2019 and it was asked you know what to do about climate change et cetera and told them the same thing there is one solution it works there's one solution nuclear there's not a second solution and now and now great britain also now informed yeah apocalypse nefer was uh michael schellenberger's book that talked about that and now informed great britain's uh not just on board with nuclear but aggressively aggressively on board so i asked this question provocatively i said you know is it a coincidence that everything i persuade on goes my way it's not because i caused it it's because i could tell what which way things are going to go right now i did of course try to influence as much as possible mark schneider was a big part of informing me so that i can form others and i don't know if you know but a number of people in congress follow me on twitter did you know that there are quite a few people in the news business and in congress who followed me on twitter and so i've been you know informing basically use using what i knew from mark schneider from michael shellenberger to communicate the safety and the necessity of nuclear and here we are but i don't think it was my uh power of persuasion that made the difference i th uh obviously it was you know schallenberger making a big difference mark schneider i think made a big difference um but i think we were it was inevitable i basically predicted something that couldn't go any other way there was only one way this could go it was a matter of how much time but as soon as people were brought up to speed information wise there was only one way it was going to go so when i cheekily say is it a coincidence that everything i try to influence goes my way it's not because i influenced it necessarily maybe i did but not necessarily it's because i'm good at picking things that are going to go that way anyway let me give you another example one of my earliest uh efforts for influence was getting smoking out of public places and out of out of offices and stuff so i put a lot of work into that but wasn't that going to go my way anyway i mean really you know do you think that smoking was always going to be allowed indoors no no i just knew it was obvious which way it was going to go i threw in on that direction maybe i made some difference maybe not but it was more like a prediction and it's easy to predict the inevitable likewise other persuasion that i've been very involved in was the right to die to have a doctor-assisted death so in california that passed so that was the law and i persuaded very hard on that topic but again wasn't it gonna go that way anyway really i feel like i just picked the topic that was going in the right direction so um just keep that in mind but i like putting that out there because it's provocative um here's a question all right i'm going to quiz you to see your general knowledge of a very important fact about covet you ready uh if you get this fact right if you get the right answer then i would say that your opinion about vaccinations might be credible because it means that you know more than other people all right so here's the test we're going to see if you have if you know enough to have a good opinion about vaccinations here's the question do vaccinations cause more variance like the delta now the delta came before the vaccinations but do the vaccinations cause more or could they cause more variance look at the answers that are streaming by on on each of your platforms we're seeing a mixture of no's and yeses do you see that the mixture is pretty mixed pretty mixed seeing a lot of yeses but seeing a lot of no's now how could you have an opinion on vaccinations unless you know this pretty important isn't it all right how many of you have heard of the the chicken vaccinations which there is a study that shows that the vaccinations for the chickens for some chicken disease actually did according to a study did increase the variance how many of you are aware of that study are you aware of the study about the chickens and how their vaccinations increased the number of variants because that's what is always tweeted to be when i bring up the topic okay so if you're not on twitter maybe you've never seen it but let's just say there is a study and the study says that where they vaccinated the chickens it increased the variance so let's say that was true now it's just a study you'd want to see some more studies and etc but let's say it's true let's say you believe it does that if it's true does it tell you something about the coronavirus vaccine if it's true for chickens oh and i'll add something i'm going to add something the chicken vaccination is also leaky just like the coronavirus one leaky meaning that even when you're vaccinated um you can still get it you just won't die so they're both leaky does the fact that you know the chicken vex the vaccination let's say you do know that cause more variance is that is does that mean that you have the same risk with the coronavirus go let's see in the comments uh this vaccine isn't as novel so you can't compare that that is a correct answer i'm looking for something else but that is a good comment yeah you can't compare they're just different technologies etc um we're not comparing to natural immunity now drop that topic for now chickens are not humans of course but remember we're talking about the logic of it we're only talking about the logic of it is the logic that if your vaccine stops most of the virus that the only ones that can get out are the are the bad ones the variants that escape the vaccinations coverage this paid comment says selecting for a specific protein to target which is what we do with chronovirus increases the probability it could cause mutations i haven't heard that before but i don't know if that's true but add that to your questions all right here's what i believed was true what i believed is that the more virus the more variants anybody does anybody agree with me not the more filters but the more virus to me if you had a billion times more viruses they'd be just naturally mutating all over the place and some of them would be stronger like the delta and they would take over but suppose only one person in the world was ever infected we'll just take the extreme only one person in the world has ever been infected with that one person create just as many variants as if a billion people were infected the answer is no no a billion people infected create more variants because there's more virus right so if your vaccine was not leaky would you have a problem nope if your vaccine is not leaky you give somebody the vaccination and they're just out of the game they're taken completely out of the game because they won't get it and they won't transmit it if it's not leaky but our vaccines are leaky so in that case do they cause more variance or fewer well let me tell you about the chicken vaccination the the case of the chicken vaccination does tell you something i think about the coronavirus vaccination it does tell you something and it's important except that it tells you the opposite of what you think here's the problem with the chicken virus it was completely different opposite really from coronavirus what is the thing everybody says about coronavirus dammit it only kills less than one percent of the people get it and most of them are old right so coronavirus is a virus that kills almost nobody percentage-wise there's still a lot of people number wise the chicken virus would have killed all the chickens fairly quickly so without a vaccine the chicken virus basically just takes out the chicken so they give the chicken a vaccine but then i can still get the virus and now the chicken that would have been dead and couldn't spread is a chicken that's very much alive and spreading like a the study about the chickens proves the opposite point than the people who are sending it to me think what they think is that it shows that vaccinations cause more variance what it really shows is that if you have more virus everywhere you get more variants because these vaccinated chickens are just full of virus almost as if they had not been vaccinated in in the classic way so keeping chickens alive so they can spread virus like crazy causes more variants because there's more virus because there's more virus so the more virus the more variance it probably isn't because of the vaccination now go to coronavirus you get a vaccination for coronavirus is it the vaccination that causes you to live longer no the thing that caused you to live longer is that the coronavirus doesn't kill you in the first place except less than one percent so where the chicken virus kept chickens alive that would have otherwise not spread because they would have been dead the coronavirus doesn't keep anybody alive as a percentage okay i shouldn't put that in a absolute as a percentage of people with coronavirus it's trivial because the people who die are less than one percent does that make sense that the coronavirus doesn't change the number of people who who have virus accepted reduce it because we know we do know that if you get the vaccination you'll be spreading it for less fewer days so probably the vaccination creates the coronavirus creates less infected people whereas the chicken virus created more infected chickens literally the opposite right so the chicken virus is opposite of what you should learn from coronavirus just remember this more virus means more variants keeping chickens alive creates more virus keeping people alive doesn't change anything because they were going to be alive anyway except for the less than one percent how's my argument now remember i'm not a virologist most of you knew that most of you knew i'm not a virologist but the person who first said this is a virologist right so the opinion i'm giving you has no credibility because it's coming from me but now i'm going to drop the bomb on you it came from somebody who actually knows the field i'm just repeating it now i don't know what the general consensus is but i know that one expert said exactly what i just said in a sense more virus means more variance and that's the end of it more virus is more variance period so just look for wherever there's more virus more variance um so the brett weinstein i'm saying this in the comments is that the virus forces uh evolution no it doesn't it doesn't force evolution the virus is is creating variants at exactly the same rate no matter what it doesn't force any evolution what it does is let things escape right it does let things escape but some things are going to escape anyway so uh i think so so let me just say this uh brett is also highly educated and i think in even in the correct fields uh largely speaking um luke says now scott knows more about biology than the brad weinstein signed who's biology expert no i'm just telling you that somebody who does have the right expertise disagrees with him and i'm repeating that argument now what credibility should you put on my discussion of the variance low low you shouldn't put too much credibility in what i said but i am i am trying to present the argument in a way that at least you can figure out what's wrong with it right so all i've added to it is the notion that more virus equals more variance with no exception and that's that's something you can fact check so now ask your experts is that right more more virus just always means more in fact more variants so just boil it down to that and and let's get a fact check because could brett uh weinstein be right that the vaccinations are somehow promoting or causing variance he could be definitely could be i wouldn't know but now you have a question does more variants more virus cause more variants or does more or does more blocking cause more variance good question all right uh mauritius says fax framing and resistance uh okay i i read your comment but i don't want to mention that one out loud all right um that is pretty much what i wanted to tell you today um letter to god please give scott a jordan peterson intervention and save boo why does jordan peterson need an intervention what's the difference between observation and empirical evidence well i think level of rigor you know empirical evidence suggests that you tried to collect it in an organized fashion whereas anecdotal just means you sort of ran into it well i don't know that jordan peterson needs any interventions he's he seems to be you know i mean he has some medical problems but i can't help on that ah itty bitty thank you for that oh you liked my assist story yesterday that's strange um what's this uh patrick kerry says bret agrees with your statement uh you mean the statement that more virus means more variance is that right so yeah i guess i guess i guess i should have been more careful with my uh response to that i don't know exactly what brett's opinion is on this so i shouldn't try to characterize it and then talk about it if i if i haven't seen the details so just assume that everything i said about that is low credibility uh why are we vertical today because so there's a weird locals i guess a bug or maybe a design flaw it would be hard to explain why but it has to do with the fact that the only way i can see the comments and also have you in the right orientation is to have two screens the only way i can see the comments is if i tweet and then i go to twitter and open it and then it takes me to the right place otherwise i can't find it i mean i could but i don't want to do it live while you're waiting and so it's just an interface oddity that makes it difficult if you're pressed for time um yeah the number of variants doesn't matter it just matters if you get a bad one right please read steve kirsh's analysis on the vaccines for balanced analysis mine's pretty balanced do you think that my my take on the vaccines is not balanced the reason you hate me well those who do is because it's balanced i don't think anybody has more balanced opinion than i do do they somebody says i'm not balanced what would be an example of that not being balanced on the vaccination be more specific i'm open to that being true by the way i'm not denying it i'm asking for a specific so i can see if i can agree with you because i because i'm trying to be balanced uh it seems to lean toward provax for sure let me push back on that so i think that's where this is coming from people think that i i speak more about things that are pro vacs how many of you would would agree with that i think i would agree with it too do most of you see that that i say more things that are provacs by their nature than anti-vaxx right i agree with that too that so that would be an observation that i think is just objectively true does that mean that i'm unbalanced is it does it mean that i'm unbalanced if i talk more about one side is that how that works is it by how much time you spend because that does matter if you spend more time on something people do get the feeling that that that means more to you well what if what if the information is biased in one direction at least the official information is biased in one direction if if i talked about every claim on the internet that is not accepted by general science then there would be maybe even more content anti-vaxx would you agree with that if i if i addressed every claim that's this anti-vaxx i would be talking more about anti-vac stuff than provac stuff do you think because there are a lot of claims on twitter that are anti-vaxx now what is the reason that i don't talk about them what what what is it about my approach that causes me to talk less about the many many claims of vaccination somebody says lack of knowledge i would argue that i see all of that because people want to send it to me people are trying to change my mind or at least my approach and people are sending me the anti-vac stuff just all day long i've seen it i've seen a lot of it so i think i think i'm well informed about what the anti-vax people are saying why do you think that i don't talk about as much how deep do you read it fairly deep i mean as deep as i read other stuff i don't i don't think i skim it more than i skim anything else yeah don't bring an allergy in yet because that just gets us off track um explain the agreement for ade why don't you ade is what define ade can somebody define ade for me what is that uh the intervention is for you all right um scott people hear you say you don't want to persuade them to take the shot but still you word things the way that feels to them you actually are how could i avoid that how could i avoid wording it in a way that you think i'm talking you into it if the data leads that way should i should i not lean the same direction as the official data would it be anti-dependent enhancement anti-body dependent enhancements meaning what i mean i know what the words mean but why why should i be talking about that so yeah so the thing that eileen thank you exactly i tried to lean toward credibility meaning that the official the official responses as wrong as they've been the the official science about code as wrong as it's been it tends to have higher credibility you know until they change the minds then things that you hear about in a um in some twitter link to an article that never gets any traction so i wait for the scientists to tell me which of the other things i should pay attention to and um you give too little weight to fairs i do give i give um wait were you here so somebody said i give too little weight to verse if you if you watch this entire live stream do you say that's true or false i give too little weight to fairs now vera's is where uh reports of bad outcomes are i just had a whole discussion where i said i agree with you that the number of reports of bad outcomes is alarming and conflicts it conflicts with and actually hurts the credibility of the scientific opinion i said that as clearly and directly as you could possibly say it and the vares database is just the uh the obvious example of those reports but it doesn't have to be embarrassed because i asked on twitter and tons of people say yeah i got a friend i get a friend and they get a friend scott would you call joe rogan for a chat i don't think he and i are the right ones for that chat oh but let me let me let me say this i don't know how often joe rogan has multiple guests for like a panel discussion i don't think he does that model but if he did there are better people than me to put on it i don't think i'm the right person for that it would be entertaining but it wouldn't it wouldn't be as useful as you want it to be um so he says i got vaccine because of scott's discussion and by doctor's advice well i hope your doctor's advice was a little bit a little bit weighted more than mine well i've been on i've been on joe rogan's program so if you google it you can find it he does have multiples on but not multiples who are on different sides right has joe ever had people who are on different sides of a debate on this at the same time i'm saying yes i don't think i've ever seen one oh he has a few times that would be the perfect situation although he's on spotify so he's he's behind the paywall it'd be better not to be behind a paywall yeah a tim pool would be sort of a good choice for that i think i'd be a good choice but i don't have the wherewithal to set it up i mean i do have to wear with all but i don't have the time and interest right now um spotify is free why are you saying spotify is free are you saying that his program on spotify is free that's not true is it wait am i missing something important it's not a paywall oh it's just ads uh really i don't know that i don't use spotify so spotify is not a subscription service it's just got ads that's the reason i didn't have spotify maybe i should get it all right well thank you see this is that this is that example again of a new kind of intelligence in real time you watched my mind be changed and you saw it a few times it's kind of cool isn't it that that we we are collectively like a a single single rational entity it just takes all of you to correct me on a regular basis to get there um body autonomy what about it i don't know uh so didn't watch the episode with dr gupta complete i did not no um all right uh so there's no ads if you have a subscription on spotify okay that makes sense um alex says god can you imagine being married to this guy i assume you're talking about me right well i'm not sure i understand that was my phone my phone just said i'm not sure i understand well i do understand somebody said imagine being married to that guy you're not wrong imagine being married to me it's no picnic believe me um so you're right about that would i host uh brett weinstein uh versus andres beckhaus uh no i would not host them if just the two of them no because that's not the right two the the ones you want are uh because both of them are kind of critic both of them are skeptics i would say skeptic of different things but i want somebody who's a believer and at least one skeptic and then somebody who can do some fact checking so you you want three people one of them just a fact checker and the other two being on on other sides of the issue so that would be the ideal model and then maybe a one moderator so you need four people moderator plus those three three plus i was good yeah actually let's make that a thing you want to make that a thing you want to do a little uh let's do a little uh persuasion experiment whoever just said let me call you out twix bar so user twix bar over on the locals platform just just has a comment that says three plus host and i like that branding so let's see if we can make three plus host a model that people understand as the best model now of course the news will often violate that model but let's see if we can get somebody to do it three plus one the the plus one is the host and the three are people on two sides of an issue and then a fact checker who doesn't seem to be associated with either of them and then a host who can keep it all straight and oh and then here's the the last part last part is not a timed event or if it's timed it's a lot of time right it could be three hours but you don't want to have five minute hit right it can't be it can't just be you know something that it's an episode on uh hannity or something you know it's it's got to be his own show it can't be an episode on somebody else's show wouldn't have enough time so let's see if we can make that happen three plus one is the model three plus host and it will be one fact checker two people on opposite sides and the host the host does a good job of moderating and making sure the fact checker gets in there what do you say let's make it a thing let's see if somebody can do one of them and then no matter how it works then we refine the model maybe the first one isn't so good but you just refine the model based on what you learn oh uh ben shapiro would be yeah there's lots of people you could think of who have the platform so here's the first thing we need we need the platform and the host right getting the guess i think would be the easy part ooh dave reuben dave rubin i think he has all the technical wherewithal which is what you need because you need the three screens and and the you know the organization of it all that's the stuff i can't i don't have the time to do but dave rubin wouldn't you watch uh dave rubin now i would make with all with all respect to dave rubin who by the way by the way dave rubin is one of my examples of the talent stack guy he's got like a whole bunch of talents that just work together perfectly i mean his career is a um he's a role model in terms of how to make something work i mean he really does a great job of combining talents to make something special but part of his talent stack is that he's agreeable and people like him i don't know i think you need somebody who's a little bit more of a bastard for the pushback all right a little bit more of a bastard i don't know if he could go full bastard because you're gonna need to shut down both of the experts but at different times and maybe even the fact checker so you're going to have to have a strong like a dictator's hand to say whoa whoa that didn't make any sense right now uh i worry that dave is too nice because he usually does interviews in which there's not a lot of conflict but maybe maybe i mean if if he wanted to do it he'd be a great platform for it because he's got a big platform so dave if you're listening to this and somebody will probably tell you if you're not listening that's a challenge to you if you could put this together and uh and be tough on them or ultimately get somebody who would be so may you know just because you're the the host doesn't mean you have to be the moderator so the three plus one doesn't have to be the host the host could just introduce it and say here you go you know it's my program but you know take it away so that could work that could work but i think dave could do it i just don't know if he wants to be the one to be that much of a bastard you need a bastard like i'd be good at it because i'm a bastard michael malus cernovich would be good cernovich could do it uh maybe corolla see the problem is you've got to find somebody who's also well informed so being a bastard isn't enough you need to also be well informed dvorak crowder guffeld mark um oh there you go mark levin okay there's one so let's just take that as our example mark levin is he well informed yeah yeah is he a good communicator yes big platform yes could he be a bastard yes i mean that in a complimentary way yeah you could totally be a bastard about it somebody said bill maher i accept that bill maher can be a bastard again in the best way you know you just have to be a bastard sometimes and shut people down and challenge them uh too polarizing somebody says maybe i'm probably too polarizing too uh you do it from reuben's studio i would do that i would do that if you wanted to um i don't know it needs to be in the studio but you need the resources um all right sam harris good good suggestion sam harris actually that's my dream team right there my dream team would be not even me doing it my dream team would be sam harris doing it that'd be pretty good because i think sarah maris has the intellectual weight as well as the ability to change his mind which is rare so i think he could do it he'd be good at that i don't know if he could be enough of a bastard probably i know what do you think could sam harris be enough of a bastard to make that work uh you probably need somebody who well let me revise that i think sam for all of his strengths uh his sort of intellectual approach to things might not fit the bastard host model as closely as possible you need a bastard host all right i've talked too long i gotta go and i will talk to you all later

oh

well ladies and gentlemen i'm running a

little bit late this morning

so you're seeing the unprepared version

of me

watch me print my notes and close my

blackout shutters and

pull up my comments

without even missing a beat

because that's what i do

all right

oh damn it

i'm not gonna be able to do what i want

to do

all right hold on locals people

gonna make a quick adjustment here

and then

everything will be cool

well people on

youtube you're seeing the show before

the show it's the one that

usually only the local subscribers say

i can't reach my notes i have to unplug

hold on

you know what i say about quality

totally overrated

yeah i could try to make this a quality

program

but who would want to watch that really

i think you'd rather watch me struggle

and

and fail

let's see

let's see

in one moment i'm going to be up and

running here

how many of you found empty shelves

today

uh

god damn it

okay

for some reason that didn't work hold on

again

i'm having a technical technical

difficulty

tweet fail to send

for some reason i can't tweet i wonder

what that would be

is twitter

down um weirdly if i can't tweet i can't

see your comments

oh and now i'm all up here

all right well i'm gonna have to keep uh

this on this perspective

wow

your local store had no spaghetti are

you kidding me

how the hell do you run out of spaghetti

that's pretty bad

all right

so

i know why you're here and something

that has to do with the simultaneous sip

and all you need is a couple of glasses

of tango chelsea stein canteen juggle

flash vessel of any kind fill it with

your favorite liquid i like coffee

join me now

for the unparalleled pleasure the

dopamine of the day the thing that makes

everything better except my punctuality

is called

the simultaneous sip and watch it

improve your antibodies now go

um

my favorite story of the day

was in the huffington post

the huffington

post ah antibodies yeah

and the huffington post reports that uh

this is the headline

daniel craig you know him he plays james

bond

prefers going to gay bars and you

probably can't guess why

that's right

daniel craig he prefers going to gay

bars and you probably can't guess why

i think i can

i'm going to take that challenge

and i think i'm going to guess

why he goes to gay bars

well i think i'll keep my guess to

myself

but i've got a i've got a hypothesis

why a good-looking actor

would go to a gay bar

time and time again with his gay friend

often

um

the article was written by in huffington

post

by ron dicker

d-i-c-k-e-r ron dicker

so

i don't know maybe you could

meet this challenge too

why would a actor

go to a gay bar

i don't know i'm stumped

i assume it's because the drinks were

low-cost

maybe

better parking

i don't know could be a lot of reasons

have i told you

that following the money always predicts

now here's everybody knows that if you

follow the money

people tend to do whatever is in their

financial interest right no no surprise

there but it also works

and i don't know why

where it shouldn't work

let me give you an example

uh remember the story about the elk that

had a tire

that somehow it got a tire around his

neck but then its antlers grew

so couldn't get the tire off

so after years of people sighting this

elk they i guess they tranquilized it

and

they removed the tire

but the way they removed the tire is by

removing the the elk's antlers

now that's not a big deal because

antlers regrow every season but

people ask well wouldn't it make more

sense to cut the tire

you know why why wouldn't you cut the

tire

just leave the antlers

and

i got the best the best answer to that

from grover norquist

you all you might recognize that name

all of the news junkies know that name

grover norquist so he's uh he's most

famous for

uh

being against extra taxes

yeah he's the low tax

guy

so we follow each other on twitter and

uh grover saw that story

and in answer to the question why the

tire was removed instead of the no why

the antlers were removed instead of the

tires

grover tweets

they could not sell the tire for as much

as antlers

they could not sell the tire for as much

as antlers

i thought to myself

well that's probably true

they probably didn't throw away the

antlers didn't they

because it seems like

do people buy them

for i don't

i guess they do right people buy antlers

is that a thing

now here's here's the funny part

i don't personally believe

that that had anything to do with why

they removed it the way they did

but

watch how often it predicts

you you'll see a situation in which

there's no way the money makes any

difference it's like a big

psychological decision or it's

political or it's health related but

it's definitely not about the money

but coincidentally

the decisions will always be in the same

direction as the money

even if it's not much and even if the

other decisions are other variables are

way bigger

it's just something to watch for let's

say for fun

i i will not assert

that it works in some statistically

meaningful way

i just know that my observation is it

always works

i assume that's confirmation bias

it couldn't always work right

that can't be true

it can't always work

but it looks like it

i mean it's hard to find any maybe you

just don't notice the exceptions that

could be the case maybe the exceptions

are just boring and they don't they

don't make even notice

all right

last night i'm told

tucker carlson had a

segment

about the auckland i think is a

professor who did a study and and

determined that the havana syndrome the

so-called secret microwave

sonic weapon

there was injuring diplomats in our

embassies

probably was nothing but

mass hysteria

now

how many of you saw that

how many of you watched tucker's episode

about the havana syndrome

possibly not being real

a lot of you saw it

here's the funny thing

i record tucker every night you know i

just i have an app that works with my

comcast slash

xfinity

and i recorded that show every night as

long as well as you know gupfield and

the five

so so those are three shows that i

record every day

the only show

that doesn't have audio on my recordings

is this one

the ones i recorded yesterday are all

fine

and in fact the show before tucker's was

fine

like it has a little lead in it records

a like a minute before the show starts

and that has audio as soon as tucker

starts the audio goes off

and i thought to myself oh darn it's my

device so i went to a different device

same thing

the the app is called stream and it's

part of the xfinity

the cable company where i live so it's

the cable companies app

so

here's the weird part

there's nothing i've wanted to see more

than that episode

because

it agreed with me

right

so so yesterday uh

you know i heard that

tucker had something that doubted the

that there was a weapon

now most of you know i think i'm the

only public figure

who said on day one of that whole

embassy of anna syndrome thing that's

it's mass hysteria and there's no weapon

so the fact that there would be a major

segment on a major news channel even an

opinion show

was really really interesting to me

because i have skin in the game

why is it that the only thing i can't

play

no i looked for it on youtube and i look

for the clips and it doesn't exist

now here's the interesting thing

part of the

story and i don't know if tucker talked

about this but part of the the story

whether talker talked about it or not

is that uh the media has been reporting

this is true that there's some kind of

weapon maybe probably

allegedly

in nbc and cnn

uh is

uh nbc has been part of that reporting

and as you know if you follow glenn

greenwald especially nbc is often

accused of being the the cia's

captured

network

meaning that nbc news basically reports

what the cia wants them to report

now i'm not saying that's true

i'm saying that's that's the uh that's

the allegation

and you see people like glenn greenwald

back up the allegation quite well

so i'm saying it's an allegation with a

lot of evidence

that's all i know

so you've got an

nbc

still trying to sell this thing as maybe

some kind of a russian weapon

which sounds exactly like this something

the cia would want you to believe if

they want to put pressure on russia and

they need the public to back them

and

i'm asking you this

what are the odds that that one thing

that the cia doesn't want you to see

allegedly right we don't we can't

confirm that but what are the odds that

the one thing that the cia doesn't want

you to see also is the one thing that

can't be seen

it's not anywhere else

can somebody find a clip of that just

that segment

of the auckland professor talking about

the havana syndrome

and and tweeted at me

because i wonder if it exists

i wonder if it's already been scrubbed

from the internet

is that a coincidence

because you have to ask yourself is the

one thing that you know the cia doesn't

want you to see

when i say you know it

let's say you're let's say you're highly

confident we can't know anything in

today's world so certainly any absolute

confidence of anything is ridiculous in

2021

but it feels like it

just a coincidence that that's the one

thing i can't watch i know

probably a coincidence let me let me say

clearly

probably a coincidence

but the fact that i have to even ask the

question is very disturbing isn't it

like why do i even have to doubt

that that happened naturally just a

technical problem

i don't know i hate that i have to ask

the question

how many of you think taiwan is at real

risk of

uh china attacking militarily in the

comments

in the comments how many of you think

there's a real risk

of a military attack and let's say in

the next two years

next two years risk of a military attack

i'm seeing some yeses and some low low

percentages like five percent

um

okay i yeah so

somebody here pedantically is saying yes

there's a risk okay technically

technically there's a risk right so i

would say that's a given

that there's a risk

it's just so small

so cnn had a uh opinion piece on this i

thought was pretty good i forget who

wrote it but the point of it is that

there's not really any indication that

china is too serious

about a military attack

and i saw a map

of the

the incursions

which was very interesting because i'd

never seen it before it was some context

about all these military planes that

china is putting into

taiwan's airspace

now when you heard that

what did your mind

give you as a picture

when you heard that

chinese warplanes lots of them

were suddenly penetrating taiwan

airspace what did your brain

give you as a picture for that

like what was the little

the visual that you got you gave it to

yourself because you didn't see a visual

but what did it look like

did it look like planes flying directly

over taiwan

probably not because you're

sophisticated viewers of the news and

you said to yourself no no not over the

land

they were over the airspace

meaning that over the ocean

around taiwan

that china claims as their own

right

i saw a picture of that incursion

let me show you what it looked like now

my picture is not to scale

and it's not the same dimensions but

i'll give you the idea

imagine if you will

that this napkin

is the space that taiwan claims for

their airspace

let's say taiwan is right in the middle

and occupies maybe i don't know

20 of the space but it's in the middle

here

maybe even 10

where do you think the all the chinese

uh incursions were

they're all on this corner right here

that's it maybe a little bit more

that's it

it was in this weird little corner

which taiwan when it draws its airspace

around itself it declares its own

airspace

so i don't think it's an international

standard

it's just taiwan saying hey this is our

space

and china just flies directly out and

they cross this little corner

of the ocean that taiwan claims as their

airspace

how many of the flights were in all of

this other area

none

none

they were all just this little corner

all china did was clip this corner but

they did a lot

you know hundreds of times but just this

little corner

that's it if they had flown here

like just outside this little corner we

wouldn't be talking about it

but because they clipped the corner

we're talking about it

now what gives taiwan the right to this

little this little this little piece

right here

the only piece that was violated what

gives taiwan that right

nothing

nothing

taiwan just claimed the right

they just said hey this is ours and and

i looked at you know my example is bad

because it's uh symmetrical

but the actual airspace is more

i don't know it's more like weird shaped

something like this

so the corner that china is clipping off

is sort of the extended corner

it's the one that looks a little

furthest

from the island itself

am i wrong that if you had seen that

picture from the start

and known that the violation is the most

trivial violation that they could get

away with

china is violating their airspace of

course but in the most trivial way

according to the the picture and i had

never seen the picture until today

yeah it's still provocative etc but the

people who seem to be smart on this

topic don't think there's any real risk

it looks like it may be for

internal politics because there's some

big chinese meeting coming up so it's

probably just for internal reasons

so i think you can stop worrying about

that one right away

um

well finally the company is the country

is coming together

because the people who are against

vaccination mandates

are gloriously

gloriously

all over the map

so you got your you know black lives

matter you got your

christian conservatives

you got your police officers you got

your teachers

so you got your

democrats you got your republicans

i can't think of another issue that

unified the country this much

can you

airline pilots thank you

yeah

it's uh

it's weirdly

i want to feel

i want to join the rest of you and feel

anxious and bad

about the division in the country

because we're all talking about it

but i'm not feeling it

like i know it's there i'm not denying

the division in the country i'm just

saying that

a lot of this stuff looks like the

normal and maybe even preferred

evolution of thought

meaning the fact that the government

took control during the

emergency

wouldn't you want that

don't you want the government to take a

firm control even if they make mistakes

it's your best bet during an emergency

i can see somebody says no well i like

that you're consistent

so i appreciate the people saying no i

don't want that i don't want the

government to ever take control in any

situation

that i feel that's a

that's a legitimate opinion and i won't

i won't criticize it because it's

consistent i imagine that those saying

that just always say that so if you're

consistent

i support you

so let me just put it in my opinion in

my opinion

because obviously a lot of you disagree

in my opinion the government needs to

take control in military matters and and

maybe a big crisis like this did they do

it well that's a separate question but i

think it's your best bet

now i'll accept that you disagree with

me on that

but

it's only good if the if the people can

take it back

the people need to regain you know grab

it back and of course the government

when it takes power it doesn't like to

give it up at all

we know that right but we have plenty of

examples of let's say hurricanes

where the government took power during

the hurricane as an emergency

and as soon as they were done they got

out of there as soon as they could

because they didn't want to be there

grabbing any power they just wanted to

do the job and leave

and what i see is as these this anti-vax

coalition

which isn't organized in any sense but

sort of a informally you know natural

coalition without organization

i feel good about it

i feel good that there's a balance of

power

the government took control

um most of you disagree but i thought

well it was our best bet even if it is

it's not ideal

but it might have been our best bet

that's how you get the vaccines etc

but i love the fact that the country is

starting to push back

and i'm not even you know it doesn't

even matter that i'm on the side of the

pushback people or not i like that they

exist

it's a good it's a good reminder to the

government who's in charge

so the more people who resist and the

more actively they resist i'm not saying

i'm on their side or not on their side

they can make their own decisions what i

say is i like living in a country where

it's happening

i like living in a country where the

government can take control

and then the people can say you know

just about now

is when you need to be giving it back

and they won't take no for an answer

that's not all bad right it's an

uncomfortable place to be we're not

happy where we are we'd like to be in a

better place i get all that

but i like that our system allows this

constructive tension between government

and the people and so far i still see

the people having the power

it might take a while

it's not going to be instant but i think

the people will get what they want i

believe the mandates will not stand

what do you think

do you think the mandates will stand

i think they'll stand in some places

but i don't imagine that the people will

let them stand for long and certainly

not everywhere

yeah i think there'll be too much too

much pushback eventually

so i've got this question whether we

have a supply chain problem or the

simulation

has been proven

when i go to the local local grocery

store

where i live the shelves are basically

full

right if you look down the row of

shelves it looks full

with one exception

you'll see this long row of products

and then there'll be this little hole in

the shelf

no more than this big

in a gigantic line everything's full but

just this little bit

that little

hole represents the product i came for

and i'm like oh crap the one thing i

want

is the only thing missing

so i go to the next aisle to look for

the other thing i'm looking for

and there's only one thing missing

and it's the damn thing i want

now i noticed this first during the

pandemic

christina asked me for some like very

specific things a specific brand of soda

which literally disappeared during the

pandemic

it doesn't exist anymore

as soon as she started saying this is

the only soda i want

it just disappeared

it was

dr pepper

no caffeine

and also diet

just disappeared

i think that's that's what it was and

likewise she had a you know a food

product

that was on a shelf with all the food

products were there except that one

that one food just disappeared and never

came back

now

is that the

am i supposed to believe that the one

thing i look for is the thing that's

missing

here's the other possibility

so one is that's just a coincidence and

it's confirmation bias and i don't

notice the other things that are missing

you know just normal psychological

phenomenon

but it's also very consistent with us

being in a simulation here's why

because

there's nobody else buying food

if this is a simulation

i'm the only one buying food

and everything else is an illusion

right

so the npcs don't buy food

they just look like it when you're

shopping

they look like they're buying food

but as soon as you leave they empty the

carts and put it all back on the shelves

so here's my point

if the simulation has a bug

the only thing that's going to be

missing is the food that you buy

because it's your simulation

the generic food that's the background

food that you'll never buy is just there

to create scenery

it never changed and there was no bug in

it so the only thing changed was the

your specific food

now i'm not too serious

uh jen says oh my god scott where is

your brain gone

simulation theory is such an illusion

now jen do you know that uh

elon musk

has the same opinion i do about the

simulation

and the actual scientists and

philosophers who know what they're

talking about do

it's accepted science

in the sense that it's accepted as a

serious

alternative uh understanding of reality

doesn't mean it's true

but it is completely accepted

by smart people as well maybe

all right

by the way i just did that one for fun

i'm not too serious about the supply

chain thing

uh trump has uh

said some new provocative things about

arizona

uh which i will not tell you are true

okay so i'm going to tell you a bunch of

things that trump says

but uh don't don't imagine that i say

any of this is true

is that clear

i don't know that it's untrue

i don't have an opinion on it true or

untrue but we'll talk about in a moment

so these are trump's claims

um talking about uh a couple of

precincts in pubert pima pima

arizona

and apparently there are great

irregularities there trump and others

have claimed and trump says they

overplayed their hand and got caught two

precincts in pima

had over 100 turnout for mail-in ballots

which is impossible and 40 precincts had

over 97 returned which basically

impossible

um

and that if you add these things

together the irregularities is more than

the amount enough the margin to win

turn a turnout rates of 99 and 100

is what you get in a third world country

blah blah blah

so

and he shows a uh a graph in his

statement

now the graph that he showed

to demonstrate that there was a certain

time of night when all the ballots

turned in a different direction

i think it was dr shiva's

his analysis

so

here's my question

why is trump

complaining about arizona irregularities

and not using information that came from

the arizona audit

wasn't the arizona audit

on his side

what am i missing in the story can

somebody connect the dots for me

how could it be that dr shiva

has this solid

incontrovertible

evidence that trump is putting forward

now how could dr shiva have that

but the people who were certainly

looking for that

the arizona audit they didn't have that

they didn't have that

or they didn't believe it enough to put

that forward as a claim

a different county

is that why was it

so so pima wasn't part of the maricopa

audit okay that's the answer thank you

remember i was telling you yesterday

that this model that we have

where i talk out loud and you correct me

in real time

it is effectively like a different form

of intelligence

because in real time you just basically

fixed my brain

because i was i couldn't connect why

there was a disconnect there it was just

a different county

so that's the answer okay

now

if you didn't know anything except what

i just told you

and that describes most of us if you

didn't know anything but what i just

told you trump makes these claims

dr shiva seems to be the source of some

some part of it

and it claims more than you know

something close to 100 turnout which

would be impossible how credible are

these claims go

don't tell me whether they're true or

false because you don't know

we don't know if they're true or false

we don't know if true or false had

changed the election only is it credible

meaning is that the kind of thing you

would be

inclined to believe because of its

nature and maybe the source and

everything you know about life

credible or not credible

i'm just looking at your answers and i

see

not interestingly

i thought most of you are going to say

yes

i really thought you were going to say

yes

interesting

i'm kind of uh

shocked

i'm blown away

so i think most of you are

are good with the difference between

what is credible

versus what is true

often you can't know what's true but you

can tell if the claim is

credible

all right so some of you think it's

credible some of you think it's not um i

told you at the beginning of the process

of the election and the audits

that 95 of everything you see

about a claim of irregularity

without even knowing what the claims

would be

before they even happened i told you 95

would be bunk

was i right

how was my prediction

that 95 of the specific claims not not

the general idea that there was a fraud

i'm not talking about the general idea

i'm talking about specific claims i said

95 of them would be false maybe 100

but then at least 95 of them would be

false how close was i

one of my best

predictions because no matter what you

think about whether the election was

fair or not overall

would you agree with me at this point

that the specific claims

have 90 95 well you could say 100

been debunked

true true or not

i think that's one of my best

best predictions of all time because

again i'm the only person saying that

that i that i know of

i can't think of anybody else who said

no 95 of everything you hear is going to

be wrong

he only provided data not claims

how are you measuring this i'm not

measuring it with any science

i'm just saying that i haven't seen any

claims that have been confirmed yet

so

predicting that 95 of them or more would

not be confirmed seems to be pretty

close to the mark

no all right

so let's keep an eye on that that's kind

of fun

um

there's something happening here that's

really interesting

now i might i think some of you are

going to imagine i've changed my opinion

when you hear this next part

because on twitter today i think i saw

at least three people

uh hallucinating my opinion

and telling me that you know it's about

time i came to the right opinion because

i was so wrong before

to which i say

i never had that opinion you thought i

had

i never had that opinion so some of you

are going to have that experience in a

moment

you could have an experience that you

think i changed an opinion

that isn't going to happen but see if

you feel like it

tell me in the comments if it feels like

i changed my opinion just feels like

that to you okay

i've told you before

that one way i judge the truth of things

in the news

is i look for a correspondence between

what the science says

and what direct observation tells me now

if my direct observation conflicts with

what the science says

it doesn't mean the observation is right

it means i've got questions

for example

science says that smoking cigarettes

can give you cancer

my observation

is that people who have lung cancer

almost always smoke cigarettes

very good

compatible totally compatible right

science says if you take this antibiotic

your

bacterial infection will probably go

away

i take the the i take the drugs

my infection goes away good science and

observation pretty good they can form

but

science is also telling us that very few

people are being injured by vaccinations

science is very clear about that

yes people can be injured by any kind of

vaccination really any kind of medicine

but they're not many

not many at least compared to the number

of people who are having uh covent

problems

but i asked on twitter because people

keep telling me anecdotally that they

know people who are injured by

vaccinations now first first question

does anybody know

that somebody in their circle was

injured by the vaccination do they know

it

or is it just that they got the

vaccination then a very unusual

health problem happened soon after

you agree they don't know it right

they just have a strong strong suspicion

so strong that they they speak of it as

if it's obvious

right

now could

in and you also know that in a big

country there would be coincidences like

that that would look exactly like people

were being injured even if they weren't

don't give me the verse database because

that's a different story

all right

so here's my opinion that you're going

to think is a change of opinion but it

isn't

you ready um so i asked on twitter how

many people personally know people who

are injured by the vaccination that

doesn't mean they know it means i

strongly suspect it and it's a lot

it's a lot

the people who say i personally know

people or multiple people

that they believe

were injured by the vaccine it's a lot

so

what do i have now

i've got the science telling me one

thing that the the side effects are rare

and then i've got personal observation

but it's really the third hand personal

observation

really all i can observe is people

telling me they observed something

pretty sketchy right but if i had

observed it myself

i would like likewise be subject to

confirmation bias

so so the fact that other people are

telling me and maybe they have

confirmation bias

probably doesn't change much because if

i had directly seen it myself i'd

probably have the same confirmation bias

so

let me say this as clearly as possible

and tell me if you think this is a

change of my opinion

there is clearly a disconnect

between observation and science

are you happy

everybody happy

how many of you have been beating me up

saying scott scott scott

there's so many people you know i can

hear all these reports it's in the

veyres database which is not confirmed

stuff

are you happy

i too

i too see what you see

meaning that it is clear to me there is

a disconnect between the science and the

observation

that does not mean the science is wrong

you all get that right doesn't mean the

science is wrong

but it is a big honking red flag

so all of you who keep telling me scott

scott scott

why are you missing the big red flag

i'm not

i'm not it's a big red flag exactly like

you say but just be aware

that confirmation bias is still the most

likely explanation

i don't know that that's the explanation

again i can't be sure of that just like

i can't be sure that the reports are

real

i can't be sure of anything at this

point

but yes i am completely on the side that

says

there's something going on here and i

don't feel like we're fully informed

that's different from saying you

shouldn't take a vaccination

right

i'm not saying you shouldn't get

vaccinated and i'm not saying you should

i'm saying that this is one of those

perfectly

crafted situations accidentally crafted

in which

your science and your observation

they've got some disconnect

i would say that's true

i still think it's probably confirmation

bias

plus

probably these vaccinations have more

side effects than others

probably

that's as far as i can go

all right

chris vickers

blue checkmark fellow on twitter you've

probably never heard of him but he's a

blue check he tweeted this today he goes

set a date now

after that date no hospital services for

the willingly unvaccinated

so it's a blue check twitter person

calling for unvaccinated people

do not have

medical care

after a certain date because you know

they've been warned you've been warned

to which i tweeted back

if we didn't need to treat citizens who

injured themselves by their own choices

one way or another

we would we could close 90 percent of

our hospitals and still have extra

capacity

so chris

have you not noticed that most of the

reasons people are in the hospital are

bad choices

now you think this one's a bad choice

other people don't so i'll recognize

that people disagree whether vaccination

is a good or bad choice

but

that's mostly what the medical

community does

the entire medical community

is correcting for your dumb ass mistakes

i mean of course people are dying from

natural causes but

when was the last time you saw somebody

in the hospital waiting room or the

emergency room who looked perfectly fit

and if they do it's a broken leg because

they did something dumb

right

it seems to me that a tremendous amount

of our entire health care budget is

correcting people's dumb ass choices in

life

so why would you why would you call this

one out to be special

it's not special at all

we're making a bad choice every time we

wake up

exercise today nah i'm busy

eat less

not today

right smoke less

okay um

provocatively

i asked this question

is it just a coincidence that everything

i

try to influence goes my way

is that just a coincidence probably not

a hundred percent

but have you ever noticed that

coincidence that whenever i'm

persuading on a particular topic

it seems to go my way

well today we learned that uh great

britain has decided that nuclear energy

will be the cornerstone of their plan to

get to zero carbon emissions

great britain is all in

on nuclear

power now um adam townsend had a uh

podcast i think it was yesterday

in which he had uh

an expert from uh oklaho i think oklo a

new generation nuclear startup

and asked this question on my behalf so

adam had solicited questions to ask

these experts and one of my questions

got asked

and it was if america can't get nuclear

if we can't get nuclear in america

how can we get it in space

now the expert explained that because

it's space

the type of energy you can use up there

is not

every kind of energy you couldn't burn

oil or

you can't use coal in space

you can't run an extension cord for

electricity so there's lots of things

you can't do to get energy in space but

the one thing you can do is nuclear

in fact we already do it

i think some satellites are nuclear

right

fact check me on that

um

and uh adam asks on my behalf can there

be a space force

without that

and uh the expert said basically you

need nuclear for space

now once you know that you need a

domestic nuclear program a good one a

robust nuclear program

because otherwise you give up space

it's over isn't it

the the question of whether america

needs to go hard into nuclear energy for

domestic use is completely answered

by just that one fact

if we give up space

that's the end that's basically putting

a timer on the united states to no

longer be an important power

you know it might be 50 years in the

future

but it definitely puts the timer on and

says okay if you're not going nuclear

you're not in space if you're not in

space you're not going to rule anything

on earth either you're done it's the end

of your republic

so i think this only could go one way

and also climate change etc

was screaming for an answer the answer

was already there it was nuclear just

people were not well informed

so when people like michael

schellenberger

testified to the american congress

and gave them information

for the first time a lot of them were

under-informed but once they were

informed

you saw that the united states congress

both parties are like yeah nuclear boom

so just being informed and brought up to

date on what the real risks are with the

newer technologies etc

was enough probably

so

uh shellenberger for the win but did you

know

that uh michael schellenberger also

did the same thing in great britain

also

brought his expertise to great britain

in 2019 and it was asked you know what

to do about climate change et cetera and

told them the same thing there is one

solution

it works

there's one solution nuclear there's not

a second solution

and now and now great britain also

now informed

yeah apocalypse nefer was uh

michael schellenberger's book that

talked about that

and now informed great britain's uh not

just

on board with nuclear but aggressively

aggressively on board

so i asked this question provocatively i

said

you know is it a coincidence that

everything i persuade on goes my

way

it's not because i caused it

it's because i could tell what which way

things are going to go

right

now i did of course try to influence as

much as possible

mark schneider was a big part of

informing me

so that i can form others and i don't

know if you know but a number of people

in congress follow me on twitter

did you know that

there are quite a few people in the news

business and in congress who followed me

on twitter and so i've been

you know informing basically use using

what i knew from mark schneider from

michael shellenberger to

[Music]

communicate the safety and the necessity

of nuclear and here we are but i don't

think it was my uh power of persuasion

that made the difference

i th uh obviously it was you know

schallenberger making a big difference

mark schneider i think made a big

difference

um but i think we were it was inevitable

i basically predicted something that

couldn't go any other way

there was only one way this could go it

was a matter of how much time

but as soon as people were brought up to

speed

information wise

there was only one way it was going to

go

so when i cheekily say is it a

coincidence that everything i

try to influence goes my way

it's not because i influenced it

necessarily maybe i did but not

necessarily it's because i'm good at

picking things that are going to go that

way anyway let me give you another

example one of my earliest uh efforts

for influence was getting

smoking out of public places and out of

out of offices and stuff so i put a lot

of work into that

but wasn't that going to go my way

anyway

i mean really

you know do you think that smoking was

always going to be allowed indoors

no no i just knew

it was obvious which way it was going to

go

i threw in on that direction

maybe i made some difference maybe not

but it was more like a prediction

and it's easy to predict the inevitable

likewise other

persuasion that i've been very involved

in

was the right to die to have a

doctor-assisted death

so in california that passed so that was

the law

and i persuaded very hard on that topic

but again wasn't it gonna go that way

anyway

really i feel like i just picked the

topic that was going in the right

direction

so

um

just keep that in mind but i like

putting that out there because it's

provocative

um

here's a question

all right i'm going to quiz you to see

your general knowledge of a very

important fact about covet

you ready uh if you get this fact right

if you get the right answer

then i would say that your opinion about

vaccinations

might be credible

because it means that you know more than

other people

all right so here's the test we're going

to see if you have if you know enough

to have a good opinion about

vaccinations

here's the question

do vaccinations cause

more variance

like the delta now the delta came before

the vaccinations but do the vaccinations

cause

more

or could they cause

more variance

look at the answers that are streaming

by on on each of your platforms we're

seeing a mixture of no's and yeses

do you see that the mixture is pretty

mixed

pretty mixed

seeing a lot of yeses but seeing a lot

of no's

now how could you have an opinion on

vaccinations

unless you know this

pretty important isn't it

all right how many of you have heard of

the

the chicken vaccinations

which there is a study that shows that

the vaccinations for the chickens

for some chicken disease

actually did

according to a study did increase the

variance how many of you are aware of

that study

are you aware of the study about the

chickens

and how their vaccinations increased

the number of variants

because that's what is always tweeted to

be when i bring up the topic

okay so if you're not on twitter maybe

you've never seen it but

let's just say there is a study

and the study says that where they

vaccinated the chickens it increased the

variance

so

let's say that was true

now it's just a study

you'd want to see some more studies and

etc but let's say it's true

let's say you believe it

does that if it's true does it tell you

something about the coronavirus vaccine

if it's true for chickens oh and i'll

add something i'm going to add something

the chicken vaccination

is also leaky

just like the coronavirus one leaky

meaning that even when you're vaccinated

um you can still get it

you just won't die

so they're both leaky

does the fact that you know the chicken

vex the vaccination let's say you do

know that cause more variance is that is

does that mean that you have the same

risk with the coronavirus

go let's see in the comments

uh this vaccine isn't as novel so you

can't compare that that is a correct

answer i'm looking for something else

but that is a good comment

yeah you can't compare

they're just different technologies etc

um

we're not comparing to natural immunity

now drop that topic for now

chickens are not humans of course but

remember we're talking about the logic

of it

we're only talking about the logic of it

is the logic that if your vaccine

stops most of the virus

that the only ones that can get out

are the are the bad ones the variants

that escape the vaccinations coverage

this paid comment says selecting for a

specific protein to target which is what

we do with chronovirus increases the

probability it could cause mutations i

haven't heard that before

but i don't know if that's true but add

that to your

questions

all right here's what i believed

was true

what i believed is that the more virus

the more variants

anybody

does anybody agree with me not the more

filters

but the more virus

to me if you had

a billion times more viruses they'd be

just naturally mutating all over the

place

and some of them would be stronger like

the delta and they would take over but

suppose only one person in the world was

ever infected

we'll just take the extreme only one

person in the world has ever been

infected

with that one person

create just as many variants

as if a billion people were infected

the answer is no

no a billion people infected create more

variants because there's more virus

right

so if your vaccine was not leaky

would you have a problem

nope

if your vaccine is not leaky you give

somebody the vaccination and they're

just out of the game

they're taken completely out of the game

because they won't get it

and they won't transmit it if it's not

leaky

but our vaccines are leaky

so in that case

do they cause more variance or fewer

well let me tell you about the chicken

vaccination

the the case of the chicken vaccination

does tell you something

i think

about the coronavirus vaccination

it does tell you something and it's

important

except that it tells you the opposite of

what you think

here's the problem with the chicken

virus it was completely different

opposite really from coronavirus what is

the thing everybody says about

coronavirus

dammit

it only kills

less than one percent of the people get

it and most of them are old

right so coronavirus is a virus that

kills

almost nobody

percentage-wise there's still a lot of

people number wise

the chicken virus

would have killed all the chickens

fairly quickly

so without a vaccine the chicken virus

basically just takes out the chicken

so they give the chicken a vaccine

but then i can still get the virus

and now the chicken that would have been

dead

and couldn't spread is a chicken that's

very much alive

and spreading like a

the study about the chickens

proves the opposite point

than the people who are sending it to me

think what they think is that it shows

that vaccinations

cause more variance

what it really shows is that if you have

more virus everywhere you get more

variants

because these vaccinated chickens are

just full of virus

almost as if they had not been

vaccinated in in the classic way

so keeping chickens alive so they can

spread virus like crazy causes more

variants

because there's more virus

because there's more virus

so the more virus

the more variance

it probably isn't because of the

vaccination now go to coronavirus

you get a vaccination for coronavirus is

it the vaccination that causes you to

live longer

no

the thing that caused you to live longer

is that the coronavirus doesn't kill you

in the first place

except less than one percent

so

where the chicken virus kept chickens

alive that would have otherwise not

spread because they would have been dead

the coronavirus doesn't keep anybody

alive

as a percentage

okay i shouldn't put that in a absolute

as a percentage of people with

coronavirus it's trivial

because the people who die are less than

one percent

does that make sense

that the coronavirus doesn't change the

number of people who

who have

virus accepted reduce it

because we know we do know that if you

get the vaccination

you'll be

spreading it for

less fewer days

so probably the vaccination creates the

coronavirus creates less infected people

whereas the chicken virus created more

infected chickens

literally the opposite right

so the chicken virus is opposite

of what you should learn

from coronavirus

just remember this

more virus means more variants

keeping chickens alive creates more

virus

keeping people alive doesn't change

anything because they were going to be

alive anyway

except for the less than one percent

how's my argument

now

remember i'm not a virologist most of

you knew that

most of you knew i'm not a virologist

but the person who first said this

is a virologist right so the opinion i'm

giving you

has no credibility because it's coming

from me

but now i'm going to drop the bomb on

you it came from somebody who actually

knows the field

i'm just repeating it

now i don't know what the general

consensus is but i know that one expert

said exactly what i just said

in a sense more virus means more

variance and that's the end of it more

virus is more variance period

so just look for wherever there's more

virus more variance

um

so the brett weinstein i'm saying this

in the comments is that the virus

forces uh

evolution

no it doesn't

it doesn't force evolution

the virus is is creating variants at

exactly the same rate no matter what

it doesn't force any evolution what it

does is let things escape

right it does let things escape

but

some things are going to escape anyway

so

uh

i think

so so let me just say this

uh brett

is also highly educated

and i think in even in the correct

fields uh largely speaking

um

luke says now scott knows more about

biology than the brad weinstein signed

who's biology expert

no

i'm just telling you that somebody who

does have the right expertise disagrees

with him and i'm repeating that argument

now

what credibility should you put on

my discussion

of the variance

low

low you shouldn't put too much

credibility in what i said but i am i am

trying to present the argument in a way

that at least you can figure out what's

wrong with it

right so all i've added to it is the

notion that more virus equals more

variance with no exception

and that's that's something you can fact

check so now ask your experts

is that right more more virus just

always means more in fact more variants

so just boil it down to that

and and let's get a fact check because

could brett uh weinstein be right

that the vaccinations are

somehow promoting or causing variance he

could be

definitely could be

i wouldn't know but now you have a

question

does more variants more virus cause more

variants or does more

or does more blocking

cause more variance

good question

all right

uh mauritius says

fax framing and resistance uh

okay

i i read your comment but i don't want

to

mention that one out loud

all right

um

that

is pretty much

what i wanted to tell you today

um

letter to god please give scott a jordan

peterson intervention and save boo

why does jordan peterson need an

intervention

what's the difference between

observation and empirical evidence

well i think

level of rigor

you know empirical evidence suggests

that you

tried to collect it in an

organized fashion

whereas anecdotal just means you sort of

ran into it

well i don't know that jordan peterson

needs any interventions he's

he seems to be

you know i mean

he has some medical problems but i can't

help on that

ah itty bitty thank you for that

oh you liked my assist story yesterday

that's strange

um

what's this uh

patrick kerry says bret agrees with your

statement

uh you mean the statement that more

virus means more variance is that right

so yeah i guess i guess i guess i should

have been more careful with my

uh response to that i don't know exactly

what

brett's opinion is on this so i

shouldn't try to characterize it and

then talk about it if i if i haven't

seen the details

so just assume that everything i said

about that is low credibility

uh why are we vertical today because

so there's a weird

locals

i guess a bug or maybe a design flaw

it would be hard to explain

why

but it has to do with the fact that the

only way i can see the comments and also

have you in the right orientation is to

have two screens

the only way i can see the comments is

if i tweet

and then i go to twitter and open it and

then it takes me to the right place

otherwise i can't find it

i mean i could but i don't want to do it

live while you're waiting

and

so it's just an interface oddity that

makes it difficult if you're pressed for

time

um

yeah the number of variants doesn't

matter it just matters if you get a bad

one right

please read steve kirsh's analysis on

the vaccines for balanced analysis

mine's pretty balanced

do you think that my

my take on the vaccines is not balanced

the reason you hate me well those who do

is because it's balanced

i don't think anybody has more balanced

opinion than i do do they

somebody says i'm not balanced

what would be an example of that

not being balanced on the vaccination

be more specific i'm open to that being

true by the way i'm not denying it

i'm asking for a specific so i can see

if i can agree with you

because i because i'm trying to be

balanced

uh it seems to lean toward provax for

sure

let me push back on that so i think

that's where this is coming from people

think that i

i speak more about things that are pro

vacs how many of you would would agree

with that i think i would agree with it

too do most of you see that

that i say more things that are provacs

by their nature

than anti-vaxx

right

i agree with that too

that so that would be an observation

that i think is just objectively true

does that mean that i'm unbalanced

is it does it mean that i'm unbalanced

if i talk more about one side

is that how that works

is it by how much time you spend

because that does matter if you spend

more time on something people do get the

feeling

that that that means more to you

well what if what if the information is

biased in one direction

at least the official information is

biased in one direction if if i talked

about every claim

on the internet that is not accepted by

general science then there would be

maybe even more content anti-vaxx would

you agree with that

if i if i addressed every claim

that's this anti-vaxx

i would be talking more about anti-vac

stuff than provac stuff do you think

because there are a lot of claims

on twitter that are anti-vaxx

now what is the reason that i don't talk

about them

what what what is it

about my approach

that causes me to talk less

about the many many claims

of

vaccination somebody says lack of

knowledge

i would argue that i see all of that

because people want to send it to me

people are trying to change my mind or

at least my approach

and people are sending me the anti-vac

stuff just all day long

i've seen it i've seen a lot of it

so i think i think i'm well informed

about what the anti-vax people are

saying

why do you think that i don't talk about

as much

how deep do you read it

fairly deep

i mean as deep as i read other stuff i

don't i don't think i skim it more than

i skim anything else

yeah don't bring an allergy in yet

because that just gets us off track

um

explain the agreement for ade why don't

you ade is what

define ade

can somebody define ade for me what is

that

uh the intervention is for you

all right um scott people hear you say

you don't want to persuade them to take

the shot but

still you word things the way that feels

to them you actually are how could i

avoid that

how could i avoid

wording it in a way that you think i'm

talking you into it if

the data leads that way

should i should i not lean the same

direction as the

official data

would it be

anti-dependent enhancement

anti-body dependent enhancements

meaning what

i mean i know what the words mean

but why

why should i be talking about that

so

yeah so the thing that eileen thank you

exactly

i tried to lean toward credibility

meaning that

the official

the official responses

as wrong as they've been

the the official science about code as

wrong as it's been

it tends to have higher credibility

you know until they change the minds

then things that you hear about in a

um in some twitter

link to an article that never gets any

traction so i wait for the scientists to

tell me which of the other things i

should pay attention to

and

um you give too little weight to fairs i

do give i give um

wait were you here

so somebody said i give too little

weight to verse

if you if you watch this entire live

stream do you say that's true or false

i give too little

weight to fairs now vera's is where uh

reports of bad outcomes are

i just had a whole discussion where i

said i agree with you that the number of

reports of bad outcomes

is alarming and conflicts it conflicts

with and actually hurts the credibility

of the scientific opinion

i said that as clearly and directly as

you could possibly say it and the vares

database is just the

uh the obvious example of those reports

but it doesn't have to be embarrassed

because i asked on twitter and tons of

people say yeah i got a friend i get a

friend and they get a friend

scott would you call joe rogan for a

chat i don't think he and i

are the right ones for that chat

oh but let me let me let me say this i

don't know how often

joe rogan has multiple guests

for like a panel discussion i don't

think he does that model but if he did

there are better people than me to put

on it

i don't think i'm the right person for

that

it would be entertaining but it wouldn't

it wouldn't be as useful as you want it

to be

um so he says i got vaccine because of

scott's discussion and by doctor's

advice well i hope your doctor's advice

was a little bit

a little bit weighted more than mine

well i've been on i've been on joe

rogan's program so if you google it you

can find it

he does have multiples on but not

multiples who are on different sides

right

has joe ever had

people who are on different sides of a

debate on this at the same time

i'm saying yes

i don't think i've ever seen one oh he

has a few times

that would be the perfect

situation

although he's on spotify so he's he's

behind the paywall it'd be better not to

be behind a paywall

yeah a tim pool

would be sort of a good choice for that

i think i'd be a good choice but i don't

have the wherewithal to set it up

i mean

i do have to wear with all but i don't

have the time and interest right now um

spotify is free

why are you saying spotify is free are

you saying that his program on spotify

is free that's not true is it

wait am i missing something important

it's not a paywall

oh it's just ads uh really

i don't know that i don't use spotify so

spotify is not a subscription service

it's just got ads

that's the reason i didn't have spotify

maybe i should get it

all right well thank you see this is

that this is that example again of a new

kind of intelligence

in real time

you watched my mind be changed

and you saw it a few times

it's kind of cool isn't it

that that we we are collectively like a

a single

single rational entity it just takes all

of you to correct me on a regular basis

to get there

um

body autonomy

what about it

i don't know

uh so didn't watch the episode with dr

gupta complete i did not no

um

all right uh so there's no ads if you

have a subscription on spotify okay that

makes sense

um

alex says

god can you imagine being married to

this guy i assume you're talking about

me right

well

i'm not sure i understand

that was my phone

my phone just said i'm not sure i

understand

well i do understand somebody said

imagine being married to that guy you're

not wrong

imagine being married to me it's no

picnic believe me

um so you're right about that

would i host uh brett weinstein uh

versus andres beckhaus

uh no

i would not host them if just the two of

them no because that's not the right two

the the ones you want are uh

because both of them are kind of critic

both of them are skeptics i would say

skeptic of different things

but i want somebody who's a believer and

at least one skeptic and then somebody

who can do some fact checking

so you you want three people

one of them just a fact checker

and the other two being on on other

sides of the issue

so that would be the ideal model and

then maybe a

one moderator so you need four people

moderator plus those three

three plus i was good yeah

actually let's make that a thing

you want to make that a thing

you want to do a little uh let's do a

little uh persuasion

experiment

whoever just said let me call you out

twix bar so user twix bar over on the

locals platform

just

just has a comment that says three plus

host

and i like that branding

so let's see if we can make

three plus host

a model

that people understand as the best model

now of course the news will often

violate that model but let's see if we

can get somebody to do it

three plus one the the plus one is the

host

and the three are people on two sides of

an issue and then a fact checker who

doesn't seem to be associated with

either of them

and then a host

who can keep it all straight

and oh and then here's the the last part

last part is not a timed event

or if it's timed it's a lot of time

right it could be three hours but you

don't want to have five minute hit

right it can't be it can't just be

you know something that it's an episode

on uh hannity or something

you know it's it's got to be his own

show it can't be an episode on somebody

else's show wouldn't have enough time so

let's see if we can make that happen

three plus one

is the model three plus host and it will

be one fact checker two people on

opposite sides and the host the host

does a good job of moderating and making

sure the fact checker gets in there

what do you say let's make it a thing

let's see if somebody can do one of them

and then

no matter how it works then we refine

the model maybe the first one isn't so

good but you just refine the model based

on what you learn

oh uh ben shapiro would be

yeah there's lots of people you could

think of who have the platform

so here's the first thing we need we

need the platform and the host

right getting the guess i think would be

the easy part

ooh dave reuben

dave rubin

i think he has all the technical

wherewithal which is what you need

because you need the three screens and

and the you know the organization of it

all that's the stuff i can't i don't

have the time to do

but dave rubin

wouldn't you watch uh

dave rubin now

i would make

with all

with all respect to dave rubin who by

the way by the way dave rubin is one of

my examples of the talent stack guy

he's got like a whole bunch of talents

that just work together perfectly i mean

his career is a

um

he's a role model in terms of how to

make something work i mean he really

does a great job of

combining talents to make something

special

but

part of his talent stack is that

he's agreeable and people like him i

don't know i think you need somebody

who's a little bit more of a bastard for

the pushback

all right a little bit more of a bastard

i don't know if he could go full bastard

because you're gonna need to shut down

both of the experts but at different

times

and maybe even the fact checker so

you're going to have to have a strong

like a dictator's hand

to say whoa whoa that didn't make any

sense

right

now

uh i worry that dave is too nice

because he usually does interviews in

which there's not a lot of conflict

but maybe maybe i mean if if he wanted

to do it he'd be a great platform for it

because he's got a big platform

so dave if you're listening to this and

somebody will probably tell you if

you're not listening

[Laughter]

that's a challenge to you

if you could put this together and

uh and be

tough on them

or ultimately get somebody who would be

so may you know just because you're the

the host doesn't mean you have to be the

moderator

so the three plus one doesn't have to be

the host

the host could just introduce it and say

here you go

you know it's my program but

you know take it away

so that could work

that could work but i think dave could

do it i just don't know if he wants to

be the one

to be that much of a bastard you need a

bastard

like i'd be good at it because i'm a

bastard

michael malus

cernovich would be good

cernovich could do it

uh maybe corolla see the problem is

you've got to find somebody who's also

well informed

so being a bastard isn't enough

you need to also be well informed

dvorak

crowder

guffeld

mark um oh there you go mark levin

okay

there's one so let's just take that as

our example mark levin is he well

informed yeah

yeah is he a good communicator yes big

platform yes

could he be a bastard

yes

i mean that in a complimentary way yeah

you could totally be a bastard about it

somebody said bill maher

i accept that

bill maher can be a bastard

again in the best way you know you just

have to be a bastard sometimes and

shut people down and challenge them

uh too polarizing somebody says maybe

i'm probably too polarizing too

uh

you do it from reuben's studio i would

do that

i would do that if you wanted to

um i don't know it needs to be in the

studio but

you need the resources

um

all right sam harris

good good suggestion sam harris actually

that's my dream team right there

my dream team would be

not even me doing it my dream team would

be

sam harris doing it

that'd be pretty good

because i think sarah maris has the

intellectual weight

as well as the ability

to

change his mind

which is rare

so i think he could do it he'd be good

at that i don't know if he could be

enough of a bastard

probably

i know what do you think could sam

harris be enough of a bastard

to make that work

uh you probably need somebody who well

let me revise that i think sam

for all of his strengths uh his

sort of intellectual approach to things

might not fit the bastard host model as

closely as possible

you need a bastard host all right i've

talked too long i gotta go

and i will talk to you all

later