Episode 505 Scott Adams - TDS, Dopamine, Climate Crazies, Russian Interference, Bernie

hey everybody I'm a little bit late this morning for no particular reason I just wasn't paying attention which happens often to me but now you're here now we're all happy it's all coming together looks like your morning is gonna start out well thanks to a little thing I call the simultaneous it and it's coming at you soon you got your cup your mug your glass your dying your tankard your chalice your flask your thermos fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee and join me now for the same thing you sip well so the news continues to serve up nothing interesting and when it's interesting it's stuff I don't talk about too much so I don't talk too much about the mass killings there's not much to say about them unfortunately they're just tragedies but the fun political stuff has sort of slowed down have you noticed so I'll just hit some of the that nuggets that fell out from today's news so apparently president Trump criticized Chris Cuomo and his show in a tweet and Chris Cuomo replied and he said he first of all accepted the criticism I think the criticism might have been about ratings or something so he accepted him and then Chris Cuomo went on to criticize the president the following way Chris Cuomo noted all the things that are going really really well under this president now of course he had to throw in that it was probably Obama that got things going and maybe it's just all luck but he did note that this president has one of the most successful first two and a half years of any president those are my words I guess but he noted that the economy was screaming and you know unemployment is good terrorism is down so he noted all the intensely good stuff happening and then he said the President must be incompetent here again I'm paraphrasing because his approval is below 50% and Cuomo said how could you have a president with so many things going right all the big stuff the economy in terrorism etc and it can't get his approval level over 50% the implication being that that's the president's fault do you see what's wrong with that the president's approval rating is not being driven entirely by the president's actions is being driven by how CNN covers him if they simply covered the actual events instead of acting like he was he was some kind of demon who had come to the the world to it to destroy all man mankind or humankind if CNN and the other news covered him in the end even the the least objective fashion his approval rate would be seventy five percent and by the way also I'll stand by that I'm gonna say that again if the news covered this president objectively and just said the facts and they could include saying that he doesn't pass the fact-checking so they could certainly criticize him for mean tweets those are facts but if you just covered what actually happened and you didn't make up stuff like the Charlottesville hoax you didn't make up stuff like mocking the guy with a bad arm that didn't happen if he didn't actually make up news he probably would have an approval of 75% and I'm not exaggerating I think that's how high it would be now of course we've never had a president who had a press that only reported the news there's always criticism of the president no matter what so you know probably Obama would have had a higher higher approval also you know if nobody ever criticized him and just just reported the straight news so it works both ways anyway it's hilarious to see that one of the biggest changes from you know earlier US history is that it used to be there was the news and then there was the stuff they reported on and that you can imagine those two things as separate things there are the things that are actually happening in the world and then there are news organizations which talk about those things but they're different things today they're the same thing today the news is what the news organizations are creating so they're not looking at it and talking about it they're actually making it the news is the news the news industry manufactures the news now it's no longer reporting it gets creation its art its persuasion so that's very different all right in no particular order some other things have you noticed that Bernie Bernie Sanders has become the voice of reason maybe on both sides but certainly for the Democrat side it seems to me that crazy Bernie was always the one who was you know way off on his socialist fantasies and he couldn't pay for stuff and it was all very pie in the sky but because they oversee and the other the other lefties have gone so far left that when he talks you say to yourself okay here comes the crazy stuff and then he talks and he go why doesn't that sound crazy anymore I was pretty sure he was crazy a few years ago did he become less crazy now I'm still not saying he knows how to pay for any of his plans that part didn't change but they asked him about impeachment and unlike many of the Democrats who were jumping on that impeachment bandwagon Bernie says now I'm more concerned about the issues let's not get distracted and by the way if we do get distracted by that probably is going to be good for Trump and you end up getting more of Trump not less so the strategy won't work and I listened to that and I thought to myself okay every part of that made sense what's going on here why am i agreeing with Bernie so aggressively strategy-wise I think he he found the exact right lane he found the nuance and so it's interesting to watch Bernie become the voice of reason that's that's how much our mental model has moved that he just stands out as a beacon of reason on the left which is probably bad news for the left because if you're most reasonable person has gigantic plans that can't possibly be practical in terms of how you pay for them under the current way he suggests them that's that's problem for the Dems all right one of the I'm going to talk about some of the dumbest things I hear on social media now it's mostly on social media I suppose here in the month of news a little bit from the pundits but these are the dumbest things that I hear on social media what is Trump doing I guess this is on the news as well the critics of the president say what is Trump doing to stop Russian interference in the next election that might be the dumbest political comment in the world because what exactly is he supposed to do Hey what exactly are you supposed to do wouldn't you assume that the people working on cybersecurity are doing everything they can to make sure it's hard to hack us hard to get into the voting machines don't you believe that all of the states are now being have now been alerted to the dangers and are doing everything that they can individually to make sure that they have secure voting processes isn't aren't all of the social media platforms who were part of Russia's interference last time are they not all complete li aware and working with this administration to know what the risks are and figured I had to deal with it of course of course they are that's obvious you don't have to do you don't have to get a report on it of course they are why wouldn't they everything suggests that that's happening now what what exactly could you do beyond protecting yourself which I assume is done what is it the people here let me get rid of this troll goodbye troll why is it that people imagine he should be doing that we could also observe and we would know he is doing it which is a big thing right because well if we sanctioned them we'd be sanctioning the sanctioning them for what they already did the question is what are we doing to stop them from doing it again so how do you stop them from doing it again in the context when they're gonna do it again there isn't really any question that they're gonna try to do it again is there they might just try to be a little more clever about it but it seems to me that all the big countries interfere with each other or whatever it makes sense and so I hear the here are the things I would add to this if our CIA is making sure that the Russia is paying a price for what they've already done would you and I know about it would you and I know that the CIA just stuck a pole so far up Putin's ass that you know it's sticking down to the top of his head what do we know that we shouldn't know that and shouldn't we expect that our CIA our cyber people are putting the screws on Russia don't you think that we have crawled so crawled into their systems so extensively that we can make the lights blink when we want to now how would we the public know about any of that because that's where all the action should be happening right you should be happening under the hood everything that the president should do or could do I'd say 75% of it should be and of our view and the president should not be bragging about it so if you're going in public and saying our president is not doing anything about Russia interference I say that might be true that's possible but how the hell would you know that if he is doing it you're supposed to not know it that's how it works now what about the credible threat that if Russia interferes again that this president will make them pay a price do we have a credible threat I think so the the most the most common criticism of this president is that he's unpredictable which happens to be one of his strengths do you think that Putin is sitting over there saying that he could mess with the United States be detected which probably would happen it probably would be detected do you think Putin thinks he has a free pass does that even make a little bit sense maybe maybe you can't say he I can't read his mind but does this seem likely to you that Putin is thinking ah they didn't do much to me last time a little bit of sanctions nothing I'm just gonna interfere again because this president will never do anything to me I don't think there's any chance that's true I would say that the most the president can do is already happening which is he's created a a persona a brand in which the one thing you can be sure of is that just because he said you were a nice guy yesterday doesn't mean he won't kill you tomorrow don't you know that's true if there's anything you could depend on with this president is that it doesn't matter how much he complimented you on Tuesday if he needs to kill you on Wednesday he's gonna kill you on Wednesday that's one of the things we like about him right I'm not wrong about that he could love you on Tuesday and kill you on Wednesday I'm pretty sure Putin knows that because we know it how would he not know it so that's the dumbest comment is that Trump isn't doing anything it seems to me that the most he could do the very most he could do is to say something in public and maybe he will be between now in the election it's kind of early to do it maybe it's not too early any time now he could say publicly look here's the deal Russia if you mess with our elections again there's gonna be a specific response and it's gonna be economic and you are not gonna like it at all now that might help but I also think Putin already knows that so even that message would be primarily aimed for domestic consumption it might make a little difference I might be happy if he did that but I don't know if it makes a big difference all right I continue to be fascinated changed in the topic by Glenn Greenwald's tweets about the old Russian collusion and Muller investigation as many of you know Glenn Greenwald who was associated with the intercept has been saying since the beginning that this Muller investigation was going to be a big night and then when it became a big nothing and he was doing his victory laps which were also very interesting to watch and he's in the now he's criticizing the press and the Democrats for acting as though the model report said the opposite of what is said so I think glad is puzzled and maybe puzzled is the wrong word frustrated sounds like a better word with the fact that the we all waited for the facts the facts came up came out and nobody changed their opinion people just saw whatever they wanted to see independent of whatever was on the page of the of the Muller report so the Democrats are continuing to report as that was had completely opposite of what it says and now of course to be fair it could be that I'm the one who's hallucinating but we can tell for sure that nobody changed their mind because the report at least I've never heard of a single person that you have you seen even one person who said you know man I got all that wrong turns out there was just nothing there have you heard even what I mean literally one person a friend a co-worker a punted on TV even one person I have not who predicted that nobody would change their opinion me me somebody said Woodward I believe Woodward said from the beginning that when he wrote his book he found nothing nothing to worry about yeah I'll have to look up Bob Woodward but I think he never believed there was anything there and the Muller report would have would have confirmed what he already did so I predicted the most unlikely think about how unlikely that was before I predicted it imagine if you will Oh Matt Taibbi could be could be yeah I'd have to look more about what he said in the beginning but I think he might be the one stand out there think he'll how unlikely my prediction was so thinking about first of all I predicted that Trump would win in 2015 very unlikely but to be fair to be fair a lot of people also predicted Trump would win so I wasn't alone I was sort of alone in describing it the way I did and and there weren't too many people who wanted to say it in public but there were other people so I wasn't alone in that but it was a it was a hard prediction but how much harder was it for me to predict that the Muller report would not change any opinions except maybe Matt Taibbi it that one that one was harder to predict wasn't it yeah yeah and I committed to it both all of my predictions I committed to so it's funny watching Glenn deal with this because you can see his I would say that even though I'm no fan of Glenn Greenwald like as a person I think he's kind of he can be kind of a and he and I have mixed it up on Twitter a little bit so when I complimented his work you should know that that's genuine because I don't like the person so much you know I just I don't have a positive feeling about the person but his work is really good can't take that away from secondly watching him as a free thinker you know and you can spot them the people who were actually seem to be following the the data watching him learned that the entire world completely ignored information that was critical information and watching him come to understand that that's the world he lives in it's kind of fascinating all right Jordan Peterson tweeted around and i retweeted it an article about how the world is greening so apparently the earth is substantially greener more trees more plants more bushes than it was ten years ago and it's being the attribution is that there's more land for agriculture and that the Chinese and and India especially were planting trees and they were actually doing this for the result they got they were trying to plant more stuff to work on pollution and climate change I guess - and all that so you can check my Twitter feed and you can see the details I just just tweeted it so it'd be near the top and oh I love this somebody said co2 is plant food because I was just going to talk about that all right so interestingly the report I just had about how the world is greening I read it quickly but I didn't see anywhere where they said co2 is contributing to the greening which seemed conspicuously missing isn't that the most obvious thing co2 good for plants the big story is there's too much co2 according to the scientists but even they would agree the plants should be growing more because of the co2 so it's weird that that was not in the story unless I just missed it it was just one sentence or something all right let me tell you the worst opinions about climate change and I'm going to say this because every time I mention climate change my Twitter feed is filled with the worst opinions now when I say the worst opinions I don't mean that they're on one side or the other so I'm not what I'm gonna say next has nothing to do about which side you're on or which side is right what I'm going to talk about as the worst opinions are the opinions that don't make make sense on any side they're just by themselves they don't make any sense all right one of them is warming is good and that whenever through history we've seen warming periods those warming periods were associated with great gains and civilization people ate better there was more wealth so warming is good how many of you have that opinion how many of you have the opinion about climate change specifically that warming is good and the warming that we will experience from climate change is also good because in the past it was good so look at them looking at the comments you see lots of disagrees but plenty of people saying yes now for those of you who are saying yes does it bother you that you're seeing so many people saying that doesn't make any sense all right let me yeah lots of you saying warming is good let me tell you why and I don't know how to I don't know how to be polite about this those of you who are saying warming is good do you not have a concept of too much you know there's there are civilizations I don't know if this is true but you've heard that there were early civilizations who didn't have a concept of zero but it seems that there are lots of people in today's world who don't have a concept of too much later they don't know what that means or they can't they can't maybe they can't hold it in their mind let me explain this to you the more co2 you have the warmer it gets according to the scientists now if you're arguing that co2 doesn't cause warming that's a separate argument but the the debate is that more co2 creates more warming do you actually believe there's no limit to how warm it could get and we'd still be happier let me put it in these words how many people believe there's no such thing as a limit to how warm it could get in other words all warming is better forever at any rate how many of you will commit to that I want you to see please give it to me in this in the statement that you believe that there's no amount of warming that will ever be bad and it will always be good to infinity anybody anybody you got really quiet there suddenly didn't you we because as soon as I say that all the people who said all warming is good you realized that there was a gigantic gaping hole in your thinking which is we're not talking about it going up a little bit and stopping the whole point is that it won't stop that's the whole fricking point is that it's not gonna stop getting warmer until we're all dead all right now you could argue that the science isn't complete that we'll figure out ways to get those are all different arguments but if your entire argument about climate changes warmer is better you're not really part of the you're not part of the reasons conversation you should never say that again so all of you are hearing me now never say in public again warming is better it makes you look like an idiot to other people right I'm not saying that's my opinion other people reasonable people will look at you and say oh right what is wrong with you nobody's arguing that a little warming isn't good that's not even the conversation the argument is that if it keeps getting warmer there'll be a point when it's not good anymore you all agree with that stop saying warming is good all right here's the other one here's the other worst argument about climate change and again I'm not taking sides on what is true and not true about the science I'm just saying that no matter what side side you're on the following thing is the worst argument it goes like this co2 is plant food it's the same problem right yeah more co2 should be good for the plants we all agree with that scientists agree with that but more co2 if the theory holds creates more warming and the warming will kill you so if your entire argument about climate change is co2 is plant food co2 is plant food you're not part of the conversation you're saying something that other people smart people are looking at and saying oh my god oh my god nobody's arguing the co2 isn't plant food you're simply stating a fact of no importance to the argument somebody's saying warming is better so right some warming may in fact be better but that's not the debate so if you're saying co2 is plant food or warming has been good in the past you're saying things that smart people think are stupid because you're not even on the right topic but you could certainly argue that the science has issues you could certainly argue that we'll figure a way to take care of it there are lots of arguments to be had but please never say to me again on Twitter the warming is good forever at any level and the co2 is good no matter how much you have because those are like not having a concept of zero or not having a concept of too much there are people signing off because they're so mad that that they realize their thinking doesn't work all right here's here's the other one that you should stop saying because it's just the worst argument stop saying there used to be more co2 in the past the reason you should stop saying that is B in the argument is well there was way more co2 in the past than there is even now so clearly co2 can hurt you that is just an uninformed argument there was more co2 in the past but scientists have a very good understanding of why the other variables were different in the past such as the Sun was not as bright or there was a different amount of ozone there was a different amount of other chemicals in the atmosphere which we know or there was more volcanic activity depending on what you're looking at so it is true that you could have lots of co2 in the past without any getting too warm because the other variables were different so stop saying there was more co2 in the past if you're trying to argue climate change because everybody who understands a little bit about climate change labels you a when you say that because that is the most debunked sceptical argument all right here's another one you shouldn't say yeah now I'll just say I disagree with this one if you believe that you saw in the Climategate emails a smoking gun you have to explain why I've looked at the same emails and it's obvious there is no smoking gun so if you can't explain that and by the way I'm not I'm right on the fence on climate change because I can't I can't really evaluate science especially a science I'm not involved with so I'm not trying to sell you my side because I don't have a side just keep that in mind so why is it that the guy who doesn't have a side and is a professional writer and literally an expert and knowing what words mean in context why is it that when I look at those Climategate emails I see absolutely nothing because the words to me are just casual talk among people who know what they're mean they're saying now obvio intent intended to be consistent with the thing they think is true which is the climate is warming there is intent to explain away things that they can't explain but there's no intent to a great conspiracy to hide the facts that's just not there all right let's change the topic Daily Beast is reporting that some twelve thousand Boy Scouts were victims of sexual abuse twelve thousand twelve thousand Boy Scouts victims of sexual abuse that's the ones we know of what is the multiplier of ones we know of two ones we don't know of four is it fifty thousand fifty thousand people kids who have been sexually abused let me tell you my experience when I was a kid I was a scout for a little while there was a guy in my town who always volunteered to work with young boys on sports teams you know Little League and stuff and I always thought to myself that's weird he's not he's not a parent he's just a guy who volunteers to work with kids all time he loves kids he also was a Boy Scout leader again didn't have a kid in Boy Scouts he just liked to join all these organizations to help out wherever there were young boys now I'm not gonna make any accusation about this particular guy but I will make the following claim any time you've got a situation where you have collections of young people and the people leading them or volunteers or at least they can volunteer for the job and try to get that job you're always going to have massive sexual abuse because who in the world wants those jobs more than a pedophile the pedophile is going to be the most motivated the one who will take the lowest paid to do the job the one who will suffer the worst conditions to do the job you should expect that over time and I hope this isn't too much of an exaggeration if you were to fast forward and nothing changed about the Boy Scouts I'm not saying this is the case at the moment but if you simple if you simply extend out the current forces and variables you should get to a point where a hundred percent of the Boy Scout leaders are pedophiles right because the pedophile will put up with more trouble will go to greater lengths will work for less money because they're getting paid off a different way unfortunately so if you wait long enough the entire Catholic Church should be pedophiles and the entire scouting organization should be penalized in the same way that I assume that most shoe sales people who work with women are probably guys with foot fetishes because they would work for less and they would try harder and they were more effort into getting those jobs over time incentives are always predictive incentives are always predictive you've created a situation with with the scouts and with the Catholic Church that pretty much guarantees it attracts a certain type of person because they would have the greatest incentive and nothing stops that it's hard to find any example where incentives that are that strong and that clear don't drive behavior I mean that would you should expect it alright that is pretty much what's going on I'm going to get one other topic that everybody hates me for because I thought of a better way to explain it I've been arguing about transgenders being allowed to play sports in the in the gender that they they have ended up in and I note there pretty much everybody who argues against me first assigned to me an incorrect opinion and then get really mad about the incorrect opinion so I thought it must be the way I'm explaining it that is making people hear it differently than I'm thinking it so I'm going to try to give you the the best explanation I can that would make me the most immune from somebody misidentifying my point here's my point all sports currently are a giant pile of crap and by that I mean their sports they work to deify the people who are good at sports who were just born lucky with a good genetic combination and maybe the right you family situation so that they can excel sports and deify people who just by luck were born with the right stuff that is all of the other people don't get to be good athletes and they get to learn that they are inferior to those few people who were born with these special skills I'm somewhere you know in the middle of that heap I was not born with special athletic skills but I'm way above average in terms of athletic ability still most of what I experience is losing if I if I run it in a tournament with lots of teams my team probably won't win if I join a team I'm probably not going to be the best one on it I might not even get to play am I sitting on the bench if you've been experienced watching sports especially school sports it's mostly about humiliating people who are bad at sports there's nothing fair about sports they're designed to be unfair by their design by their intention they're mostly about creating big categories of losers where there would have been none before I'll say that again sports creates losers where there would not have been any losers and and far and away mostly losers we we tend to deify and celebrate the winners but is is winning a sports important it's not sports are are really just some weird thing we play out because it feels good but sports alright so here's my point sports are this big unfair cruel pile of that's the current situation if you were to add on top of that a little extra unfairness it is like adding on top of so if you tell me that adding to makes the original worse I say you can't really make worse by on it so when you say to me that adding transgenders ruined sports I say well it does it does introduce a new set of unfairness but it's a new unfairness on top of a completely unfair thing this designed to be completely unfair some people just have advantages it's probably not you so my only argument is that adding - doesn't change the original if you're starting with the point of view that sports are clean and fair and wonderful and you're adding a little taint to them by this little bit of unfairness that you perceive in transgenders well then I would say you're welcome to that argument but my argument is not that we're starting out with a good situation and adding an imperfection I say we're starting with a huge pile of unfair humiliating and we're adding a little more humiliating on top of it it's still just a pile of when you're done so I say that the social benefit of treating everybody equally there's a greater gain than adding some to some that which is irrelevant all right Seinfeld did it better once you're wet you're wet well by that analogy and somebody says but it's only unfair to women again it's already completely unfair and adding a little more doesn't change the original so so your argument is that sports don't matter so who cares I didn't say they don't matter have you noticed one of the ways you can tell that an argument is solid is that the people arguing against you have to create an imaginary argument - to be angry about and you're going to see that in the comments I'll pick one out here or somebody pick somebody said who hurt me buh-buh-buh poem you are hypocritical about what you are unfairly talented at creating comic strips that's correct totally unfair oh let's talk about Kim traveling to Russia this could be a good thing could be a bad thing there's no way to know but chairman Kim is visiting with Putin I guess that's happening today or something like that and I've got a feeling this could be good because the thing that Kim wants more than anything else is security and if Kim gets a guarantee of security from three countries Russia China and the US he might be able to to convert his nuclear program into you know just an energy program so this is probably an important step now the the cynic would say he's just trying to get Putin on his side so he doesn't have to give up any nukes and maybe could be but I would think that Russia China and the United States would all agree on the following point that if those three countries can guarantee the let's say the safety of North Korea that that's a pretty good argument for you don't need your nukes anymore but you need all three to be on the same side and to keep each other keep each other in line you know maybe there's some way that we the three can guarantee it with some kind of sanctions against each other if they don't or something I don't know there may be some way to guarantee all right watch the recording you literally just said the sports don't matter well let me clarify that sports are not what's the best way I said they they matter to people because people say they matter so that's just a observable fact people act as those sports matter so in their minds they do matter so it is also true that if if you don't play sports you can still have a good life right there are plenty of people who don't participate in any sports and they don't really miss it they don't so I think you could say that if you could snap your fingers and nobody couldn't remember this sports even existed it wouldn't matter you just wouldn't care you wouldn't even notice it was gone so in the sense of what does a human being need in life etc probably doesn't matter but we do treat it as though it matters so that's that's the clarification losing also motivates people to be better sure and that's a good reason to add transgender athletes because if you have a transgender athlete then everybody gets the character-building experience of losing instead of just a few people you get a few more people losing so they get even better character right right because that's our that's our clever workaround for the fact that sports are a giant humiliation engine it's really about humiliating the people who are not going to sports that's mostly what happens for every few people who it definitely helps their life it definitely does help their life there are some people who are absolutely better off from sports and a lot more people who are just humiliated by learning how unqualified they are for sports all right oh let me ask this question directly one of the things I get all the time on a number of topics is that when people don't agree with me they say they imagine I have motives that are not obvious meaning they imagine that what I'm really doing is just trolling and that it's not right real opinion I just want to get the clicks up etc.

I don't know I don't know if I've ever done that it's not something I'm doing now and certainly you know that no time in my periscope life have I ever claimed to hold a position that I didn't really claim I just sort of don't do that I mean it wouldn't be interesting I don't know why I'd do it feels like it'd be a bad risk reward so just don't think about that if I tell you my real opinion it's my real opinion I've got the fu money I don't need to mess around I couldn't gain enough you know attention or I don't know how I would gain enough by pretending to have an opinion I didn't have so I don't do it and then other people are saying well he's he's just gonna say this crazy thing and then he's gonna you know he's gonna twist it around at the end he's got some agenda not really my agenda is the the same theme I always have which is that we are irrational creatures and most of our perceptions and our opinions and our decisions are irrational and so when I point out points of irrationality sometimes it's about other people sometimes it's about you and when it's about you you think well that can't be true you must be just saying this for a fact but what I say about other people he's saying oh yeah he's nailing it Scott is so on this talking about that other person but when he talks about me I'm sure he's just kidding he can't really mean that could he so he says guests lighting is beautiful gas lighting is not a thing it's not a thing if you think somebody's gas lighting you it means you're experiencing cognitive distance maybe not every time but that's the most likely explanation if you think that somebody is intentionally trying to make you insane to doubt your doubt your belief in reality well maybe there's somebody who has done that somewhere but no that's not a thing there are just people who are lying there are people persuading they're people who are wrong you know there are all kinds of things but there is no gas lighting if you imagine that there is you were experience a cognitive problem yeah the the reason that people let me be as clear as possible cognitive dissonance can be identified by people coming up with weird explanations of things so if I say here's my here's my reason why I think something's true and it doesn't ring true you say no no you got it wrong here's my reasons why it's wrong so there's no cognitive dissonance in that you just hear some information you have a different opinion you disagree but if I nail it or somebody else does and they say something that it just looks true but you don't want it to be what do you do what does your brain do when you're presented with a truth that you really really don't want to be true because it would ruin your entire worldview you come up with a strange explanation for how this incongruity could exist and the one you see the most is well they must be gaslighting me so anybody who says that gas lighting is happening almost certainly is experiencing cognitive dissonance about something and they're and they're presenting it because they have this weird opinion that doesn't make any sense doesn't doesn't shed any facts isn't gas lighting just a negative term for persuasion no it's more than that because gas lighting is comes from a Hitchcock movie and the idea of it was that you would make somebody think they were actually crazy make them actually doubt their ability to understand the world it's not just persuading them of something new persuasion is you know down here and gas lighting would be like this persuasion first of all could be completely ethical ordinary persuasion is ethical if you you know if you're an ethical person gas lighting is by definition and unethical horrible thing and nobody's doing it alright that's all for now gonna talk to you later bye for now

hey everybody I'm a little bit late this

morning for no particular reason I just

wasn't paying attention which happens

often to me but now you're here now

we're all happy it's all coming together

looks like your morning is gonna start

out well thanks to a little thing I call

the simultaneous it and it's coming at

you soon

you got your cup your mug your glass

your dying your tankard your chalice

your flask your thermos fill it with

your favorite liquid I like coffee and

join me now for the same thing you sip

well so the news continues to serve up

nothing interesting and when it's

interesting it's stuff I don't talk

about too much so I don't talk too much

about the mass killings there's not much

to say about them unfortunately they're

just tragedies but the fun political

stuff has sort of slowed down have you

noticed

so I'll just hit some of the that

nuggets that fell out from today's news

so apparently president Trump criticized

Chris Cuomo and his show in a tweet and

Chris Cuomo replied and he said he first

of all accepted the criticism I think

the criticism might have been about

ratings or something so he accepted him

and then Chris Cuomo went on to

criticize the president the following

way Chris Cuomo noted all the things

that are going really really well under

this president now of course he had to

throw in that it was probably Obama that

got things going and maybe it's just all

luck but he did note that this president

has one of the most successful first two

and a half years of any president those

are my words I guess but he noted that

the economy was screaming and you know

unemployment is good

terrorism is down so he noted all the

intensely good stuff happening and then

he said the President must be

incompetent here again I'm paraphrasing

because his approval is below 50% and

Cuomo said how could you have a

president with so many things going

right all the big stuff the economy in

terrorism etc and it can't get his

approval level over 50% the implication

being that that's the president's fault

do you see what's wrong with that the

president's approval rating is not being

driven entirely by the president's

actions is being driven by how CNN

covers him if they simply covered the

actual events instead of acting like he

was he was some kind of demon who had

come to the the world to it to destroy

all man mankind or humankind if CNN and

the other news covered him in the end

even the the least objective fashion his

approval rate would be seventy five

percent and by the way also I'll stand

by that I'm gonna say that again if the

news covered this president objectively

and just said the facts and they could

include saying that he doesn't pass the

fact-checking so they could certainly

criticize him for mean tweets those are

facts but if you just covered what

actually happened and you didn't make up

stuff like the Charlottesville hoax you

didn't make up stuff like mocking the

guy with a bad arm that didn't happen if

he didn't actually make up news he

probably would have an approval of 75%

and I'm not exaggerating I think that's

how high it would be now of course we've

never had a president who had a press

that only reported the news there's

always criticism of the president no

matter what so you know probably Obama

would have had a higher higher approval

also you know if nobody ever criticized

him and just just reported the straight

news so it works both ways

anyway it's hilarious to see that one of

the biggest changes from you know

earlier US history is that it used to be

there was the news and then there was

the stuff they reported on and that you

can imagine those two things as separate

things there are the things that are

actually happening in the world and then

there are news organizations which talk

about those things

but they're different things today

they're the same thing today the news is

what the news organizations are creating

so they're not looking at it and talking

about it they're actually making it the

news is the news the news industry

manufactures the news now it's no longer

reporting it gets creation its art its

persuasion so that's very different all

right

in no particular order some other things

have you noticed that Bernie Bernie

Sanders has become the voice of reason

maybe on both sides but certainly for

the Democrat side it seems to me that

crazy Bernie was always the one who was

you know way off on his socialist

fantasies and he couldn't pay for stuff

and it was all very pie in the sky but

because they oversee and the other the

other lefties have gone so far left that

when he talks you say to yourself okay

here comes the crazy stuff and then he

talks and he go why doesn't that sound

crazy anymore I was pretty sure he was

crazy a few years ago did he become less

crazy now I'm still not saying he knows

how to pay for any of his plans that

part didn't change but they asked him

about impeachment and unlike many of the

Democrats who were jumping on that

impeachment bandwagon Bernie says now

I'm more concerned about the issues

let's not get distracted and by the way

if we do get distracted by that probably

is going to be good for Trump and you

end up getting more of Trump not less so

the strategy won't work

and I listened to that and I thought to

myself okay every part of that made

sense what's going on here

why am i agreeing with Bernie so

aggressively

strategy-wise I think he he found the

exact right lane

he found the nuance and so it's

interesting to watch Bernie become the

voice of reason that's that's how much

our mental model has moved that he just

stands out as a beacon of reason on the

left which is probably bad news for the

left because if you're most reasonable

person has gigantic plans that can't

possibly be practical in terms of how

you pay for them under the current way

he suggests them that's that's problem

for the Dems all right one of the I'm

going to talk about some of the dumbest

things I hear on social media now it's

mostly on social media I suppose here in

the month of news a little bit from the

pundits but these are the dumbest things

that I hear on social media what is

Trump doing I guess this is on the news

as well the critics of the president say

what is Trump doing to stop Russian

interference in the next election that

might be the dumbest political comment

in the world because what exactly is he

supposed to do Hey

what exactly are you supposed to do

wouldn't you assume that the people

working on cybersecurity are doing

everything they can to make sure it's

hard to hack us hard to get into the

voting machines don't you believe that

all of the states are now being have now

been alerted to the dangers and are

doing everything that they can

individually to make sure that they have

secure voting processes isn't aren't all

of the social media platforms who were

part of Russia's interference last time

are they not all complete

li aware and working with this

administration to know what the risks

are and figured I had to deal with it of

course of course they are that's obvious

you don't have to do you don't have to

get a report on it of course they are

why wouldn't they everything suggests

that that's happening now what what

exactly could you do beyond protecting

yourself which I assume is done what is

it the people here let me get rid of

this troll

goodbye troll why is it that people

imagine he should be doing that we could

also observe and we would know he is

doing it which is a big thing right

because well if we sanctioned them we'd

be sanctioning the sanctioning them for

what they already did the question is

what are we doing to stop them from

doing it again so how do you stop them

from doing it again in the context when

they're gonna do it again there isn't

really any question that they're gonna

try to do it again is there they might

just try to be a little more clever

about it but it seems to me that all the

big countries interfere with each other

or whatever it makes sense and so I hear

the here are the things I would add to

this if our CIA is making sure that the

Russia is paying a price for what

they've already done would you and I

know about it would you and I know that

the CIA just stuck a pole so far up

Putin's ass that you know it's sticking

down to the top of his head what do we

know that we shouldn't know that and

shouldn't we expect that our CIA our

cyber people are putting the screws on

Russia don't you think that we have

crawled so crawled into their systems so

extensively that we can make the lights

blink when we want to now how would we

the public know about any of that

because that's where all the action

should be happening right you should be

happening under the hood

everything that the president should do

or could do I'd say 75% of it should be

and of our view and the president should

not be bragging about it so if you're

going in public and saying our president

is not doing anything about Russia

interference I say that might be true

that's possible but how the hell would

you know that if he is doing it you're

supposed to not know it that's how it

works now what about the credible threat

that if Russia interferes again that

this president will make them pay a

price do we have a credible threat I

think so the the most the most common

criticism of this president is that he's

unpredictable which happens to be one of

his strengths do you think that Putin is

sitting over there saying that he could

mess with the United States be detected

which probably would happen it probably

would be detected do you think Putin

thinks he has a free pass does that even

make a little bit sense maybe maybe you

can't say he I can't read his mind but

does this seem likely to you that Putin

is thinking ah they didn't do much to me

last time a little bit of sanctions

nothing I'm just gonna interfere again

because this president will never do

anything to me I don't think there's any

chance that's true I would say that the

most the president can do is already

happening which is he's created a a

persona a brand in which the one thing

you can be sure of is that just because

he said you were a nice guy yesterday

doesn't mean he won't kill you tomorrow

don't you know that's true if there's

anything you could depend on with this

president is that it doesn't matter how

much he complimented you on Tuesday if

he needs to kill you on Wednesday he's

gonna kill you on Wednesday that's one

of the things we like about him right

I'm not wrong about that

he could love you on Tuesday and kill

you on Wednesday I'm pretty sure Putin

knows that because we know it how would

he not know it so that's the dumbest

comment is that Trump isn't doing

anything it seems to me that the most he

could do the very most he could do is to

say something in public and maybe he

will be between now in the election it's

kind of early to do it maybe it's not

too early any time now he could say

publicly look here's the deal Russia if

you mess with our elections again

there's gonna be a specific response and

it's gonna be economic and you are not

gonna like it at all now that might help

but I also think Putin already knows

that so even that message would be

primarily aimed for domestic consumption

it might make a little difference I

might be happy if he did that but I

don't know if it makes a big difference

all right I continue to be fascinated

changed in the topic by Glenn

Greenwald's tweets about the old Russian

collusion and Muller investigation as

many of you know Glenn Greenwald who was

associated with the intercept has been

saying since the beginning that this

Muller investigation was going to be a

big night and then when it became a big

nothing and he was doing his victory

laps which were also very interesting to

watch and he's in the now he's

criticizing the press and the Democrats

for acting as though the model report

said the opposite of what is said so I

think glad is puzzled and maybe puzzled

is the wrong word frustrated sounds like

a better word with the fact that the we

all waited for the facts the facts came

up came out and nobody changed their

opinion people just saw whatever they

wanted to see independent of whatever

was on the page of the of the Muller

report so the Democrats are continuing

to report as that was had completely

opposite of what it says and now of

course to be fair it could be that I'm

the one who's hallucinating but we can

tell for sure that nobody changed their

mind because the report at least I've

never heard of a single person that you

have you seen even one person who said

you know man I got all that wrong turns

out there was just nothing there have

you heard even what I mean literally one

person a friend a co-worker a punted on

TV even one person I have not who

predicted that nobody would change their

opinion me me

somebody said Woodward I believe

Woodward said from the beginning that

when he wrote his book he found nothing

nothing to worry about

yeah I'll have to look up Bob Woodward

but I think he never believed there was

anything there and the Muller report

would have would have confirmed what he

already did so I predicted the most

unlikely think about how unlikely that

was before I predicted it imagine if you

will Oh Matt Taibbi could be could be

yeah I'd have to look more about what he

said in the beginning but I think he

might be the one stand out there think

he'll how unlikely my prediction was so

thinking about first of all I predicted

that Trump would win in 2015 very

unlikely but to be fair to be fair a lot

of people also predicted Trump would win

so I wasn't alone I was sort of alone in

describing it the way I did and and

there weren't too many people who wanted

to say it in public but there were other

people so I wasn't alone in that but it

was a it was a hard prediction but how

much harder was it for me to predict

that the Muller report would not change

any opinions

except maybe Matt Taibbi

it that one that one was harder to

predict wasn't it yeah yeah and I

committed to it

both all of my predictions I committed

to so it's funny watching Glenn deal

with this because you can see his I

would say that even though I'm no fan of

Glenn Greenwald like as a person I think

he's kind of he can be kind of a

and he and I have mixed it up on Twitter

a little bit so when I complimented his

work you should know that that's genuine

because I don't like the person so much

you know I just I don't have a positive

feeling about the person but his work is

really good can't take that away from

secondly watching him as a free thinker

you know and you can spot them the

people who were actually seem to be

following the the data watching him

learned that the entire world completely

ignored information that was critical

information and watching him come to

understand that that's the world he

lives in

it's kind of fascinating all right

Jordan Peterson tweeted around and i

retweeted it an article about how the

world is greening so apparently the

earth is substantially greener more

trees more plants more bushes than it

was ten years ago and it's being the

attribution is that there's more land

for agriculture and that the Chinese and

and India especially were planting trees

and they were actually doing this for

the result they got they were trying to

plant more stuff to work on pollution

and climate change I guess - and all

that so you can check my Twitter feed

and you can see the details I just just

tweeted it so it'd be near the top and

oh I love this somebody said co2 is

plant food because I was just going to

talk about that all right

so interestingly the report I just had

about how the world is greening I read

it quickly but I didn't see anywhere

where they said co2 is contributing to

the greening which seemed conspicuously

missing isn't that the most obvious

thing co2 good for plants the big story

is there's too much co2 according to the

scientists but even they would agree the

plants should be growing more because of

the co2 so it's weird that that was not

in the story unless I just missed it it

was just one sentence or something all

right let me tell you the worst opinions

about climate change and I'm going to

say this because every time I mention

climate change my Twitter feed is filled

with the worst opinions now when I say

the worst opinions I don't mean that

they're on one side or the other so I'm

not what I'm gonna say next has nothing

to do about which side you're on or

which side is right what I'm going to

talk about as the worst opinions are the

opinions that don't make make sense on

any side they're just by themselves they

don't make any sense

all right one of them is warming is good

and that whenever through history we've

seen warming periods those warming

periods were associated with great gains

and civilization people ate better there

was more wealth so warming is good how

many of you have that opinion how many

of you have the opinion about climate

change specifically that warming is good

and the warming that we will experience

from climate change is also good because

in the past it was good so look at them

looking at the comments you see lots of

disagrees but plenty of people saying

yes now for those of you who are saying

yes does it bother you that you're

seeing so many people saying that

doesn't make any sense

all right let me yeah lots of you saying

warming is good let me tell you why and

I don't know how to I don't know how to

be polite about this those of you who

are saying warming is good do you not

have a concept of too much you know

there's there are civilizations I don't

know if this is true but you've heard

that there were early civilizations who

didn't have a concept of zero but it

seems that there are lots of people in

today's world who don't have a concept

of too much later they don't know what

that means or they can't they can't

maybe they can't hold it in their mind

let me explain this to you the more co2

you have the warmer it gets according to

the scientists now if you're arguing

that co2 doesn't cause warming that's a

separate argument but the the debate is

that more co2 creates more warming do

you actually believe there's no limit to

how warm it could get and we'd still be

happier let me put it in these words how

many people believe there's no such

thing as a limit to how warm it could

get in other words all warming is better

forever at any rate how many of you will

commit to that I want you to see please

give it to me in this in the statement

that you believe that there's no amount

of warming that will ever be bad and it

will always be good to infinity anybody

anybody you got really quiet there

suddenly didn't you we because as soon

as I say that all the people who said

all warming is good you realized that

there was a gigantic gaping hole in your

thinking which is we're not talking

about it going up a little bit and

stopping the whole point is that it

won't stop that's the whole fricking

point is that it's not gonna stop

getting warmer until we're all dead all

right now you could argue that the

science isn't complete that we'll figure

out ways to get

those are all different arguments but if

your entire argument about climate

changes warmer is better you're not

really part of the you're not part of

the reasons conversation you should

never say that again

so all of you are hearing me now never

say in public again warming is better it

makes you look like an idiot to other

people right I'm not saying that's my

opinion

other people reasonable people will look

at you and say oh right what is wrong

with you

nobody's arguing that a little warming

isn't good that's not even the

conversation the argument is that if it

keeps getting warmer there'll be a point

when it's not good anymore you all agree

with that

stop saying warming is good all right

here's the other one here's the other

worst argument about climate change and

again I'm not taking sides on what is

true and not true about the science I'm

just saying that no matter what side

side you're on the following thing is

the worst argument it goes like this

co2 is plant food it's the same problem

right yeah more co2 should be good for

the plants we all agree with that

scientists agree with that but more co2

if the theory holds creates more warming

and the warming will kill you so if your

entire argument about climate change is

co2 is plant food co2 is plant food

you're not part of the conversation

you're saying something that other

people smart people are looking at and

saying oh my god oh my god

nobody's arguing the co2 isn't plant

food you're simply stating a fact of no

importance to the argument somebody's

saying warming is better so

right some warming may in fact be better

but that's not the debate so if you're

saying co2 is plant food or warming has

been good in the past you're saying

things that smart people think are

stupid because you're not even on the

right topic but you could certainly

argue that the science has issues you

could certainly argue that we'll figure

a way to take care of it there are lots

of arguments to be had but please never

say to me again on Twitter the warming

is good forever at any level and the co2

is good no matter how much you have

because those are like not having a

concept of zero or not having a concept

of too much there are people signing off

because they're so mad that that they

realize their thinking doesn't work all

right

here's here's the other one that you

should stop saying because it's just the

worst argument stop saying there used to

be more co2 in the past the reason you

should stop saying that is B in the

argument is well there was way more co2

in the past than there is even now so

clearly co2 can hurt you that is just an

uninformed argument there was more co2

in the past but scientists have a very

good understanding of why the other

variables were different in the past

such as the Sun was not as bright or

there was a different amount of ozone

there was a different amount of other

chemicals in the atmosphere which we

know or there was more volcanic activity

depending on what you're looking at so

it is true that you could have lots of

co2 in the past without any getting too

warm because the other variables were

different so stop saying there was more

co2 in the past if you're trying to

argue climate change because everybody

who understands a little bit about

climate change labels you a when

you say that because that is the most

debunked

sceptical argument all right here's

another one you shouldn't say yeah now

I'll just say I disagree with this one

if you believe that you saw in the

Climategate emails a smoking gun you

have to explain why I've looked at the

same emails and it's obvious there is no

smoking gun so if you can't explain that

and by the way I'm not I'm right on the

fence on climate change because I can't

I can't really evaluate science

especially a science I'm not involved

with so I'm not trying to sell you my

side because I don't have a side just

keep that in mind so why is it that the

guy who doesn't have a side and is a

professional writer and literally an

expert and knowing what words mean in

context why is it that when I look at

those Climategate emails I see

absolutely nothing because the words to

me are just casual talk among people who

know what they're mean they're saying

now obvio intent intended to be

consistent with the thing they think is

true which is the climate is warming

there is intent to explain away things

that they can't explain but there's no

intent to a great conspiracy to hide the

facts that's just not there all right

let's change the topic Daily Beast is

reporting that some twelve thousand Boy

Scouts were victims of sexual abuse

twelve thousand twelve thousand Boy

Scouts victims of sexual abuse that's

the ones we know of what is the

multiplier of ones we know of two ones

we don't know of four is it fifty

thousand fifty thousand people kids who

have been sexually abused let me tell

you my experience when I was a kid I was

a scout for a little while there was a

guy in my town who always volunteered to

work with young boys

on sports teams you know Little League

and stuff and I always thought to myself

that's weird he's not he's not a parent

he's just a guy who volunteers to work

with kids all time he loves kids

he also was a Boy Scout leader again

didn't have a kid in Boy Scouts he just

liked to join all these organizations to

help out wherever there were young boys

now I'm not gonna make any accusation

about this particular guy but I will

make the following claim any time you've

got a situation where you have

collections of young people and the

people leading them or volunteers or at

least they can volunteer for the job and

try to get that job you're always going

to have massive sexual abuse because who

in the world wants those jobs more than

a pedophile the pedophile is going to be

the most motivated the one who will take

the lowest paid to do the job the one

who will suffer the worst conditions to

do the job you should expect that over

time and I hope this isn't too much of

an exaggeration if you were to fast

forward and nothing changed about the

Boy Scouts I'm not saying this is the

case at the moment but if you simple if

you simply extend out the current forces

and variables you should get to a point

where a hundred percent of the Boy Scout

leaders are pedophiles right because the

pedophile will put up with more trouble

will go to greater lengths will work for

less money because they're getting paid

off a different way unfortunately so if

you wait long enough the entire Catholic

Church should be pedophiles and the

entire scouting organization should be

penalized in the same way that I assume

that most shoe sales people who work

with women are probably guys with foot

fetishes because they would work for

less and they would try harder and they

were more effort into getting those jobs

over time incentives are always

predictive

incentives are always predictive you've

created a situation with with the scouts

and with the Catholic Church that pretty

much guarantees it attracts a certain

type of person because they would have

the greatest incentive and nothing stops

that it's hard to find any example where

incentives that are that strong and that

clear

don't drive behavior I mean that would

you should expect it alright that is

pretty much what's going on I'm going to

get one other topic that everybody hates

me for because I thought of a better way

to explain it

I've been arguing about transgenders

being allowed to play sports in the in

the gender that they they have ended up

in and I note there pretty much

everybody who argues against me first

assigned to me an incorrect opinion and

then get really mad about the incorrect

opinion so I thought it must be the way

I'm explaining it that is making people

hear it differently than I'm thinking it

so I'm going to try to give you the the

best explanation I can that would make

me the most immune from somebody

misidentifying my point here's my point

all sports currently are a giant pile of

crap and by that I mean their sports

they work to deify the people who are

good at sports who were just born lucky

with a good genetic combination and

maybe the right you family situation so

that they can excel sports and deify

people who just by luck were born with

the right stuff that is all of

the other people don't get to be good

athletes and they get to learn that they

are inferior to those few people who

were born with these special skills

I'm somewhere you know in the middle of

that heap I was not born with special

athletic skills but I'm way above

average in terms of athletic ability

still most of what I experience is

losing if I if I run it in a tournament

with lots of teams my team probably

won't win if I join a team I'm probably

not going to be the best one on it I

might not even get to play am I sitting

on the bench if you've been experienced

watching sports especially school sports

it's mostly about humiliating people who

are bad at sports there's nothing fair

about sports they're designed to be

unfair by their design by their

intention they're mostly about creating

big categories of losers where there

would have been none before I'll say

that again sports creates losers where

there would not have been any losers and

and far and away mostly losers we we

tend to deify and celebrate the winners

but is is winning a sports important

it's not sports are are really just some

weird thing we play out because it feels

good but sports alright so here's my

point

sports are this big unfair cruel pile of

that's the current situation if you

were to add on top of that a little

extra unfairness it is like adding

on top of so if you tell me that

adding to makes the original

worse I say you can't really make

worse by on it so when you

say to me that adding transgenders

ruined sports I say well it does it does

introduce a new set of unfairness but

it's a new unfairness on top of a

completely unfair thing this designed to

be completely unfair

some people just have advantages it's

probably not you so my only argument is

that adding - doesn't change

the original if you're starting

with the point of view that sports are

clean and fair and wonderful and you're

adding a little taint to them by this

little bit of unfairness that you

perceive in transgenders well then I

would say you're welcome to that

argument but my argument is not that

we're starting out with a good situation

and adding an imperfection

I say we're starting with a huge pile of

unfair humiliating and we're

adding a little more humiliating

on top of it it's still just a

pile of when you're done so I

say that the social benefit of treating

everybody equally there's a greater gain

than adding some to some that

which is irrelevant all right

Seinfeld did it better once you're wet

you're wet well by that analogy and

somebody says but it's only unfair to

women again it's already completely

unfair and

adding a little more doesn't change

the original so so your argument is

that sports don't matter so who cares I

didn't say they don't matter

have you noticed one of the ways you can

tell that an argument is solid is that

the people arguing against you have to

create an imaginary argument - to be

angry about and you're going to see that

in the comments I'll pick one out here

or somebody pick somebody said who hurt

me

buh-buh-buh poem you are hypocritical

about what you are unfairly talented at

creating comic strips that's correct

totally unfair oh let's talk about Kim

traveling to Russia this could be a good

thing could be a bad thing there's no

way to know but chairman Kim is visiting

with Putin

I guess that's happening today or

something like that and I've got a

feeling this could be good because the

thing that Kim wants more than anything

else is security and if Kim gets a

guarantee of security from three

countries Russia China and the US he

might be able to to convert his nuclear

program into you know just an energy

program so this is probably an important

step now the the cynic would say he's

just trying to get Putin on his side so

he doesn't have to give up any nukes and

maybe could be but I would think that

Russia China and the United States would

all agree on the following point that if

those three countries can guarantee the

let's say the safety of North Korea that

that's a pretty good argument for you

don't need your nukes anymore but you

need all three to be on the same side

and to keep each other keep each other

in line you know maybe there's some way

that we the three can guarantee it with

some kind of sanctions against each

other if they don't or something I don't

know there may be some way to guarantee

all right watch the recording you

literally just said the sports don't

matter well let me clarify that sports

are not what's the best way I said they

they matter to people because people say

they matter so that's just a observable

fact people act as those sports matter

so in their minds they do matter so

it is also true that if if you don't

play sports you can still have a good

life right there are plenty of people

who don't participate in any sports and

they don't really miss it they don't so

I think you could say that if you could

snap your fingers and nobody couldn't

remember this sports even existed it

wouldn't matter you just wouldn't care

you wouldn't even notice it was gone so

in the sense of what does a human being

need in life etc probably doesn't matter

but we do treat it as though it matters

so that's that's the clarification

losing also motivates people to be

better sure and that's a good reason to

add transgender athletes because if you

have a transgender athlete then

everybody gets the character-building

experience of losing instead of just a

few people you get a few more people

losing so they get even better character

right right because that's our that's

our clever workaround for the fact that

sports are a giant humiliation engine

it's really about humiliating the people

who are not going to sports that's

mostly what happens for every few people

who it definitely helps their life it

definitely does help their life there

are some people who are absolutely

better off from sports and a lot more

people who are just humiliated by

learning how unqualified they are for

sports all right oh let me ask this

question directly one of the things I

get all the time on a number of topics

is that when people don't agree with me

they say they imagine I have motives

that are not obvious meaning they

imagine that what I'm really doing is

just trolling and that it's not right

real opinion I just want to get the

clicks up etc I don't know I don't know

if I've ever done that it's not

something I'm doing now and certainly

you know that no time in my periscope

life

have I ever claimed to hold a position

that I didn't really claim I just sort

of don't do that I mean it wouldn't be

interesting I don't know why I'd do it

feels like it'd be a bad risk reward so

just don't think about that if I tell

you my real opinion it's my real opinion

I've got the fu money I don't need to

mess around

I couldn't gain enough you know

attention or I don't know how I would

gain enough by pretending to have an

opinion I didn't have so I don't do it

and then other people are saying well

he's he's just gonna say this crazy

thing and then he's gonna you know he's

gonna twist it around at the end he's

got some agenda not really my agenda is

the the same theme I always have which

is that we are irrational creatures and

most of our perceptions and our opinions

and our decisions are irrational and so

when I point out points of irrationality

sometimes it's about other people

sometimes it's about you and when it's

about you you think well that can't be

true you must be just saying this for a

fact but what I say about other people

he's saying oh yeah he's nailing it

Scott is so on this talking about that

other person but when he talks about me

I'm sure he's just kidding he can't

really mean that could he so he says

guests lighting is beautiful gas

lighting is not a thing it's not a thing

if you think somebody's gas lighting you

it means you're experiencing cognitive

distance maybe not every time but that's

the most likely explanation if you think

that somebody is intentionally trying to

make you insane to doubt your doubt your

belief in reality well maybe there's

somebody who has done that somewhere but

no that's not a thing there are just

people who are lying there are people

persuading they're people who are wrong

you know there are all kinds of things

but there is no gas lighting

if you imagine that there is you were

experience a cognitive problem yeah the

the reason that people let me be as

clear as possible cognitive dissonance

can be identified by people coming up

with weird explanations of things so if

I say here's my here's my reason why I

think something's true and it doesn't

ring true you say no no you got it wrong

here's my reasons why it's wrong so

there's no cognitive dissonance in that

you just hear some information you have

a different opinion you disagree but if

I nail it or somebody else does and they

say something that it just looks true

but you don't want it to be what do you

do what does your brain do when you're

presented with a truth that you really

really don't want to be true because it

would ruin your entire worldview you

come up with a strange explanation for

how this incongruity could exist and the

one you see the most is well they must

be gaslighting me so anybody who says

that gas lighting is happening almost

certainly is experiencing cognitive

dissonance about something and they're

and they're presenting it because they

have this weird opinion that doesn't

make any sense doesn't doesn't shed any

facts isn't gas lighting just a negative

term for persuasion no it's more than

that because gas lighting is comes from

a Hitchcock movie and the idea of it was

that you would make somebody think they

were actually crazy make them actually

doubt their ability to understand the

world it's not just persuading them of

something new

persuasion is you know down here and gas

lighting would be like this persuasion

first of all could be completely ethical

ordinary persuasion is ethical

if you you know if you're an ethical

person gas lighting is by definition and

unethical horrible thing and nobody's

doing it alright that's all for now

gonna talk to you later bye for now