could think independently would have that opinion, right?

All right, here's another one. My critics keep telling me that I'm wrong when I make a statistical prediction. If I say something's like 75% chance of happening and then it doesn't happen, people say you were wrong. That might be an NPC situation too. Because if I say there's a 75% chance of something happening and it doesn't happen, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I mean I could also be wrong because they may have calculated the odds incorrectly, but that's a different error. You're not wrong about what happened because you just put a statistical likelihood on it. That's all you did.

So if you think that means somebody's wrong or you feel you have certainty when no certainty is called for, here's another tell. If you're certain you made the right choice on the vaccination, you might be an NPC. Now the exception would be people have specific medical problems, right? There are some people who have the extremes and you could be pretty confident you made the right decision. But if you're anywhere in the middle, and I think I'm somewhere in that middle zone where it's not completely obvious which way to go, you know because I'm fit but I have one comorbidity. I don't know if it's the bad one. You know, asthma, who knows. So I can't calculate my own risk. If you think that you can tell if I made the right decision, you might be an NPC. Because I can't tell. I can't tell if I made the right decision.

Let me ask you right here. How many, so I decided to get vaccinated. So I have two shots so far. I haven't made a decision about the booster. Probably I'll get one but I haven't made a decision yet. I'll wait as long as I feel comfortable waiting before I make a decision. How many of you are positive I made the wrong decision? Go. Now, not people who think I likely made the wrong decision but how many are positive I made the wrong decision? Go.

I think I scared away all the NPCs. Yeah, it's unknowable, right? So why would anybody criticize me for my choice? How could you criticize anybody for their choice if they're anywhere in this middle zone where I am? Most of you are in the middle zone, right? Most of you don't have a clear cut, you know, I have three comorbidities or a clear cut I'm 12 years old and I don't talk to people, anything like that.

Mandates. Now there is also a persistent rumor that I'm a big supporter of mandates. Does anybody think that? How many of you think I'm a big supporter of mandates? That's literally the opposite of what I am, isn't it? Now I think this came from saying that the first two, was it two weeks, we were going to lock down for two weeks. I definitely favor that. Now when I say favor it, I mean I didn't disagree with it, which is different than favoring it I guess. I would say I didn't push back on it because I thought well it's worth a try. If there are enough experts that think this is worth a try and it's the fog of war, we don't know any better, two weeks is like a good risk-reward kind of thing. But after that it sort of rapidly became clear that that wasn't going to be the answer.

Yeah, I've repeated so, but I did say the first two weeks was worth a shot, low risk. Then I started persuading against mandates. Well you think I'm not? Do you think I haven't persuaded against mandates? I tell you almost every time I'm on here I'm against it. But I think the mandates are really just a power question. It's just a power question. The public has the power but they have to take it, right? It's not automatic. They just have to have enough people on one side and then they just take the power.

The golden years. Yeah, I think the golden years are right on track. Sometimes it looks darkest before the dawn. But all of this stuff that's happening that's making us rethink civilization fairly fundamentally is what we needed to do. You know. All right. Yeah, I think the golden age is still looking very good actually. I'm very happy about it. The only thing that scares me is inflation at the moment.

Let's see. I saw an interesting thread by Michael Bang Petersen who has many qualifications that make him qualified to say this sort of thing. And his thread, I'll summarize it. He thinks that trying to force the unvaccinated will only strengthen their resistance and cause terrorism. What do you think? So his view is that once you've got all the easy to persuade people on board, that if you try too hard with the unvaccinated people it's going to backfire. Okay, that feels right to me. So everything I know about persuasion says yes, yes and yes. Completely right.

So let's say that you wanted to persuade this group but you didn't want to make it mandatory because you honestly believed it would be good for them and good for the world. But you still want to give them their freedom to make the choice. How would you persuade them? Now you could argue that it's unethical, right? You could argue that it would be unethical to persuade people. But I'm going to give you what I think is the most ethical persuasion and even this is a little sketchy. It goes like this. The fake because. The fake because but maybe a little bit real in this case. Here's what I mean.

Imagine if you will that there's something that the anti-vaxxers have in common. Is there anything they have in common? I think so. I think within the conservative anti-vaxxers what they have in common is probably conservative, wouldn't you say? And also pro-gun, wouldn't you say? So this will never happen but I'm going to give you an idea of the concept. Suppose Biden said, you know, damn it, the most important thing in the country is to get people vaccinated. Now I'm not saying that but suppose he did. I suppose he believed it and he was doing what he thought was best for the country so there's no bad intention in this hypothetical. And suppose he said, you know this is our biggest thing. Here's the deal I'm going to make. For one year, or let's say as long as I'm in office, I won't sign any gun legislation but you have to get vaccinated. We have to get to 85% vaccinated. And if we don't, I'm going to sign every gun law that Congress gives me. But if you get vaccinated at 85%, I'm going to back off. I'm just going to wait. You know I'm not going to say I'm against it or for it. I just won't sign anything for my term. Nothing on guns. What do you think?

Now if the gun idea is too radical and it is, I mean I use it for effect, imagine if there's something else. Suppose he said to you I won't raise taxes. I won't raise taxes if you get vaccinated up to 85%. Is there anything that Biden could offer or the government could offer that would get you to say damn it, I was sort of close to the edge but leaning on vax but now you offered me something that I kind of do want that. How about this? Are you ready? How about this one. Since critical race theory is not taught in schools it should be easy to get people to agree to remove it because nobody, as Adam Dopamine pointed out on Twitter today, nobody is complaining. If you asked to get rid of Bigfoot in the schools would anybody complain? Well not in a normal way. They wouldn't complain. They would call you crazy but they wouldn't complain about it because they'd say well we don't have Bigfoot in our schools so yeah you can get rid of it. The left is saying they don't have critical race theory so why would they complain about getting rid of it?

So why not offer, I'll tell you what, I'll create a commission to look for critical race theory in schools and we'll get rid of it but you got to get vaccinated. Okay, again that will never happen but the point is is there any kind of a deal Biden can make so that he's not forcing people to turn into terrorists by resisting the mandates? Could he buy their cooperation as opposed to forcing it? Because if somebody agrees to the deal, yeah okay, damn it I'll take that deal, then they don't become terrorists because they say well this is the deal I agreed to anyway.

I don't see the exact way to solve this but I think think of it in terms of a deal might be more productive than thinking of it as a mandate. Does anybody agree with the concept that turning it into a voluntary deal of some sort is the only way this could work? It's got to be turned into a non-mandate that still has some persuasive power if you wanted to do it. Now you may be opposed to anything that moves people toward vaccinations but that's a separate question.

Here's another way to get things done persuasively. You know as I was saying since the left says that critical race theory doesn't exist in schools only in colleges because it's a college level course and the right says it sure does, we can see plenty of examples of it in the written documentation, it's all over. One way to do this would be to argue no, no CRT is there and then they say it isn't and then you're kind of done because you're arguing definitions. The other way to do it, and this is good persuasion, is to enter their frame. Now you have to kind of know what you're doing to make this one work. This is sort of a high level persuasion. But if you enter their frame it means accepting their frame and then breaking it from the inside.

And so let's say you accepted the frame that it doesn't exist, that there's no CRT. You know it's there but you accept their frame. You know you're right, there is no CRT but you know it would be great if we could do a full audit and give that to the conservatives and prove to them that there's no CRT. Would you let us prove your case? Let us help you because you're making the case that there's no CRT and the conservatives are not believing you. So let us do an audit. We'll call out each of the instances that we think might look like it and then you can show us how that's not actually part, could not be called critical race theory. So how about we help you make your case? That's entering their frame. Now how does anybody object to you helping them win their argument? It's hard, right? No, we're on your side. We're going to help you win this argument by auditing and proving there's no critical race theory.

I'm not saying that would work. It's just an example of how to enter somebody's frame and break it from the inside. Usually that's on things that are really, really contentious. That's sort of the only way to do it. I don't think there's a second way to do it.

All right. It looks like the polls are speaking loudly. That some ABC poll, that's a new one, said that 51% of registered voters say they'd support the GOP candidate in the district and only 41% say the Democrat. That's the biggest lead for Republicans in this poll in 40 years. The GOP has the biggest lead in 40 years. Do you know what this doesn't include? Massive Democrat retirements which are also predicted. So we have unprecedented poll differential also on top of it unprecedented number of Democrats going to retire on top of it. And we're only 11 months in, people. This is just the first year of Biden and it looks like just everything just keeps getting worse according to the public.

So you know people could talk about the great reset. Well apparently the great reset is coming in 2022 but it's not what people thought it would be. It looks like the great reset is people realizing that the Democrat policies just didn't work and that your news is all fake.

Now there is a possible tipping point coming. It goes like this. If you're on one side, let's say yo