like it might be the latter because the police are just going to want to use their resources for things that are useful, right? The police do not want to waste their time. So the counter to the slippery slope is that the police will hardly ever want to do anything with the red flag. I think it would be shockingly difficult to get the police to act at all on a red flag complaint. It would have to be pretty damning for the police to act, only because the police have limited resources.

So do you remember I said follow the money? Do you know why I always speed if I happen to be driving at 4:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning? Well, let's say 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday morning. Do you know why I always speed? Well, not only because there's not much traffic but because I know the police department will not implement resources for a low traffic time of day. Follow the money. If you know how money influences how everybody acts, you'll never get a speeding ticket.

I realize that's a dramatic claim, but let me give you another example. Do you ever see those signs that the police will put up to tell you what your speed is? And the idea is to tell you that you're speeding so you'll slow down. Do you know what I do when I see that sign? I speed. Do you know why? Because no police department in the world is going to put up that sign to warn you to slow down and then also assign an officer to give you a ticket if you didn't follow the sign. The sign is what you put there when you can't afford to put an officer there all the time.

If you don't understand economics, you might think, oh there's going to be a police right after the sign. No, no. The signs instead of the police. Somebody says wrong, but I bet it's not wrong often. So the point is if you understand economics, you can anticipate things a little bit better.

Tim Pool was swatted eight times and the police keep coming. Yeah, that Tim Pool thing, there's something we need to know about that. There's something about that story that doesn't make complete sense. I'm having a little trouble believing he gets swatted time after time, you know, and it's a fake call and that the SWAT falls for it one time after another. Really? There's nobody on a SWAT team who's heard of Tim Pool at this point? It'd be hard for me to imagine any SWAT organization where there isn't at least one person who knows who Tim Pool is and that he gets swatted all the time on fake calls. I don't know. I'm just not believing it. There's something about the story that doesn't add up.

But I'd say you have two counterforces that could be tested. One is of course people would abuse the red flag law. Of course they would because we're people. People will use anything. There's nothing that can be introduced into the world that people won't abuse. So yes, they'll abuse it. But will the police resource constraint cause the police to be like a really useful check on this? That they won't act unless it's really obvious. And when it's really obvious, maybe they should act, right?

So I'm not sure. The only thing I know for sure is that you could test it in one state, wait a couple years. If it worked, then you don't give up your constitutional rights without getting something in return.

Alex Berenson on Twitter did a thread with a bunch of good ideas about persuasion. But there was one that he had there that I'm going to push back a little bit on because I have a counter to it. So here's a persuasion tip of the day. So what Alex wrote was, I called it the rule of three. I think this came from McKinsey or someplace. That whenever you're trying to persuade a person to do something, always present three reasons. Never two, never four, but exactly three. And the idea is it gets people's attention and most of us have been wired to expect things in groups of three, so it's more persuasive.

And I can see the argument that maybe there's some hard wiring that three reasons is just the right amount. But I would push back on that because my experience is if you give people three reasons, the argument goes like this, and see if this sounds familiar. I'll say, well there are three reasons. Reason number one, it would kill you. Reason number two, it would be expensive. Reason number three, it's not even doable. It's impractical.

Now if you give three reasons, people will start arguing with parts of those categories and you'll never get them to agree. Because the moment you argue the first one and they say no it's not going to kill you, and then you do your argument and they agree or they don't agree, they usually get to the point where they say but what about that other one? And you're like, wait a minute, are you conceding this point? And they'll never concede the point. They'll just move to the other point.

Then you say okay, okay, we'll get back to this one because I think I won this, but you didn't agree, so let me win these other two. And then you make your great point on the second one. What did they do? They say, oh now you've made two good points. Let's see about this third one. Never. They'll just move to the third one and start arguing why you're wrong about that one. And you'll be like, well I'm not so sure I've settled the first two, did I? And then you argue the third one and you make your point. And now in your mind you've said all right, three arguments, I've now supported all three arguments. We're done here.

What does the person who has now been completely vanquished on all three points do next? You tell me. In your own experience you've gone down the list of three. You've completely vanquished their points in ways that they don't even have a response to. They literally don't have a response to it. They just move to the next. What happens next? They return to the first one and start over. That's right. They start over and they will pretend that you had never already countered their first argument. They'll just start back on the first one. And you'll think, all right, do you have amnesia? We just did this. And they'll act like you hadn't. And so you'll think, okay, well I'll do it again. And then you'll do the same three again and you'll say there, at least you remember all three debunks, so now we're done. And what will they do? They'll start with the first one again like it never happened.

Now you've seen this, right? I'm not the only person who's gone through this. I call it you keep going down the well and there's no bottom. Anyway, so I would argue that you should take their strongest argument and debunk it and then say, boom, if your strongest argument fell apart, we don't really need to talk about the other ones because I'm not going to let you escape to them because I know you'll escape.

So the first thing you want to do is destroy their escape paths. Now you have to be a deadly debater to do this. But if you're sure you're going to win on the strongest point, make sure you've eliminated all their escape paths before you annihilate their first one by getting them to agree. How about I just take your strongest point, and if I can debunk your strongest point, would you agree to maybe rethink the rest of it? We don't have to do it today, but just your strongest point. Because if you do that, that gets rid of their escape. As you say, yeah, yeah, yeah, but today let's just talk about the strongest point. And now that you see you were wrong about that, maybe you should do a little research. That's about as far as you can go. People can talk themselves into things better than you can talk them into it. So if you sort of point them in the right direction, sometimes they'll walk there on their own.

I believe that once again your lives have been improved by the time that we spent here together. And how many of you just got smarter? Three. Three of you. But I'll get the rest of you next time. I can't win them all.

DeSantis is pushing back on baby vaccines. I've heard some weird things on the baby vaccine story. Like the weirdest one was, I can't believe this is right, like there's something about the vaccine companies don't have liability unless it includes kids, unless kids are part of the program or something. Did somebody hear that? Like that doesn't sound right. I mean that doesn't sound true. Just on the surface that doesn't sound true.

Scott, stop with the self-importance. I've been advised to stop with my self-importance. Michael, I'm going to hide you on this channel because you're less important than me. Goodbye. I would advise all of you to ramp up your self-importance. Anybody who advises you to think of yourself as less important, you really need to remove them from your life immediately. Immediately remove them from your life. So if you'd like to talk to me about how I'm feeling too good about my abilities, that's great. Just don't do it around me. I just don't have any interest in you. And I would advise you to maybe think better of yourself. I don't know which would make you happier. I'm no doctor, but I'll bet you that if you learn to think well of yourself, you'll be happier.

Did I miss a Jordan Peterson tweet discussion? Oh, is there a spicy Jordan Peterson tweet that I missed? Can somebody fill me in? What did Jordan Peterson say? Oh, he did? All right, we'll see if there's a Jordan Peterson thing I need to respond to. Ask Schellenberger about Biden's oil lies. Yeah, Michael Schellenberger does the best job of putting things in context, especially for energy questions and homeless stuff. But yeah, he's been calling out Biden for his claims about refineries.

So was there a Jordan Peterson tweet? The one with God's ad? Should I look it up? It's like you're not going to tell me. Well, maybe I'll do that for tomorrow. I won't keep you. All right, that's all for today. I will talk to you tomorrow. And I'm hoping that all of you have an amazing day. Peterson said you weren't important? What's that say? Peterson said you weren't important or that people weren't important? Is that what he said? All right, well we'll figure out what he said.

And on that note, I'm apparently babbling even though this is still the best experience that most of you have ever had in your life. And some of you are going to have an even better experience later today. I don't know who you are, but probably because that's how it works. Yes, an amazing day coming, and I'll talk to you tomorrow. YouTube, bye for now.