Episode 331 Scott Adams: The New Standard of Justice, Time, Climate Models, Fentanyl

Date: 2018-12-11 | Duration: 44:03

Topics

Time’s Person of the Year: Fake News! Time put Trump on the cover, without putting him on cover Things that aren’t crimes are closing in on President Trump CNN video mocking “climate deniers” The RATE of warming is the problem Scientists tend to be terrible at communicating their point Would China want it publicized that they Fentanyl Kill 30,000 year? Why doesn’t China themselves have a Fentanyl problem? Googles defense that they aren’t illegitimately affecting democracy Advertising doesn’t work? The Google algorithm affects what people think and believe “Loser Think” is an unproductive way of thinking

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com

> [!note] Rough Transcript
> 
> This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

## Transcript

[0:11]

hey Kate is Joey in here already I looked away how about the rest of you eunuchs Raab Sharona and Matthias Sam get on in here get on in here and grab your coffee or your beverage of your choice because it's time for coffee with Scott Adams some of you may have noticed that I did not do my periscope yesterday there was a travel day coming back from Utah up in the high elevations where it is difficult to walk up stairs very hard to breathe but forget about that because now it's time for the simultaneous up grab your mug your cup your vessel your stein your container your glass fill it with your favorite liquid I like coffee it's time to join me for the simultaneous enter oh so good yes I just spent a few days up in Utah up in the

[1:14]

spent a few days up in Utah up in the mountains it was a ski vacation without any of the skiing turns out the slopes where we planned or at least Cristina plan to ski were not opened so we stated at a ski resort but didn't do any skiing I have ever got a lot of work done on my upcoming book the title of which will be a loser thing and we're gonna be talking about some loser thinking today so first of all did you see that Time magazine has named its Person of the Year its Person of the Year as fake news
now that's not exactly what they called it according to them was Chi shogi and other journalists who have been killed in other countries now the other journalists who have been killed in other countries that seems pretty legitimate but can you honestly tell me that jus shogi would have been time

[2:16]

that jus shogi would have been time Person of the Year if it had not been an anti-trump narrative to make it so the thing that makes fake news fake news is that they concentrate on whatever looks bad for the president at the expense of all context at the expense of accuracy at the expense of fairness at the expense of justice so Chi shogi is sort of the perfect example of fake news the reason it's a world event is because of the president literally the president is time Person of the Year again but instead of putting Trump on the on the cover which would have been a compliment they found a way to put Trump on the cover without putting Trump on the cover it's very clever because if you're going to ask yourself okay who is the most newsworthy you know thing going on there's no there's no competition given that Time magazine is you know their own

[3:18]

that Time magazine is you know their own standard is not that the person they put on the cover is a good character they are not saying that whoever's on the cover is a good person they're very clear about that they're saying it's whoever's the most news making person can you really tell me that just shogi and the murder journalists are the number one news makers in the past year I don't think it's even close there's president Trump this big this is how much news President Roh mate this big how much of that was Jay shogi and the other murdered journalists maybe this big a little bit tiny little bit in the corner painting so how can they how can they put Trump on the cover without actually putting him on the cover they do it by putting the greatest symbol of fake news against Trump that we've seen all year so fake news is actually the cover of Time

[4:20]

news is actually the cover of Time magazine but how did they do it with fake news they used fake news to make fake news the time cover it's kind of genius so I tweeted this morning that it seems that the new standard for Justice for at least according to CNN the standard of Justice when they're talking about the president anyway is that you are innocent until they accuse other people of doing other things that's the new standard of of guilt so according to CNN the president is in a lot of trouble the walls are closing in he's probably gonna go to jail it looks like it's gonna be some kind of impeachment the president is in so much legal jeopardy why well let me give you all the reasons so many reasons there are so many reasons and to

[5:22]

reasons there are so many reasons and to share with you all the reasons that President Trump is in legal jeopardy I'd like to introduce my guest Dale Dale would you come over here and explain to the nice people why President Trump is in so much trouble gladly my old gladly explain it to you in words that even you can understand and it goes like this President Trump is in deep deep legal trouble number one people who are not President Trump did unrelated things now if it was only one person who did an unrelated thing well I might say well let it go could be a coincidence they might just be a coincidence but seriously folks if lots of other people do unrelated things that's as guilty as you could be why because circumstantial evidence

[6:23]

why because circumstantial evidence circumstantial evidence a lot of people don't now but I talked to a lawyer I talked to a real lawyer and they said the circumstantial evidence is how you get convictions in many cases because lots of times you don't have an eyewitness you need your circumstantial evidence and so if you have lots of circumstantial evidence about other people doing other things you put it all together like a puzzle all the pieces fit you've got yourself a good case now it might not matter that everything the president is being accused of is an actual crime most of them are imaginary crimes talking to a Russia for Russian for example is sort of an imaginary crime going to a meeting in which the topic of the meeting was not quite what you thought it was it's a crime this crime it's crime because lawyers are

[7:24]

crime it's crime because lawyers are circumstantial evidence and other people did other things unrelated gotta put it all together it's like a mosaic if you just look at one tile well you can't tell anything you have to put it all together that's when the walls start closing in oh I wish I have a second to hand how do you do have you do walls closing in when you only have one hand available
that's the walls closed again folks and seem so so what's going on is that we're seeing the critics of the president go absolute bonkers about things which aren't crimes but if he had done something which he didn't do and if that

[8:27]

something which he didn't do and if that thing had been a crime he would go to jail you know this is a standard which you could apply to let's say mother Teresa mother Teresa as far as I know did not commit any crimes but did she ever know anybody who committed crimes yes she did oh yeah I'll bet you mother Teresa has at one time or another when she was live associated with somebody who had committed crimes and so the walls are closing in on that Saint let me tell you secondly she did a lot of things that were not crimes but here's the important but if they had been crimes she would be guilty as hell you get that right I mean I don't think we can give her a free pass just because everything she did was legal you have to

[9:31]

everything she did was legal you have to look at the fact that if those things that mother Teresa did weren't legal and instead they were completely different things there were illegal and and she had done those things jail time am i right am i right how does not everybody see that how is that not obvious to all the Trump supporters that if you do things that are different from what you've done and those other things you didn't you are criminal you're going to get punished it's common sense so I tweeted around an interesting little piece from CNN
CNN so CNN did a little video to mock the climate deniers to to tell them what they keep getting wrong here are some things the CNN pointed out as what the

[10:34]

things the CNN pointed out as what the climate deniers get wrong number one they confuse weather and client and climate which of within the right by the way a lot of the climate deniers say it's cold outside today therefore no global warming which is ridiculous because the climate alarmists do not claim that the temperature will only go up they claim it might be lower some places and higher some places but that overall it's going up so so far so far a good point secondly they say that the climate deniers who say wait a minute the climate is always changing it's always going up where it's always going down are not making a good point because the complaint is that the warming is warming at a rate we've never seen before so if your argument is hey the climate is always going up or going down you're not really being rational you're not really in the argument because the

[11:36]

not really in the argument because the climate scientists are not complaining that the temperature is just going up because as the deniers say temperatures are always going up or going down but historically it is never going up at this rate that's what's different so if you're not arguing the rate of change you're not really even in the conversation you're kind of talking about a different topic that has nothing to do with the topic somebody's saying that's false it's not false next CNN mocked the people who in this little video mocked the people who say that the Sun and the Sun cycles are the primary drivers of the climate oh wait they didn't do that for some reason first and I don't know the reason by the way for some reason CNN had a video in which they were mocking the biggest the

[12:39]

which they were mocking the biggest the biggest things that climate deniers believe and the one they left out was the Sun now I personally think that the Sun is not the answer to you know climate change so I'm not on the side of the folks who are saying it's all the songs all the Sun because again we're seeing a rate of warming which we've never seen and we've certainly seen sunspots before we have a history of the Sun going through cycles so we would know if the Sun has ever caused this rate or rate of warming and apparently it hasn't so the rate of warming is all the alarmists are talking about but the deniers will only talk about the warming so we're not really arguing the same point and it bothers me to be lumped with the deniers because I talk about the accuracy of the models which I'm going to talk about a minute but it bugs

[13:40]

going to talk about a minute but it bugs me to be on the side of people who has such a bad point if you're not arguing the rate the rate of warming you're not even on the same topic as the climate scientists so stop saying it's about the Sun unless you can say at the same time the Sun has a history of making the rate the rate only the rate it's all we're talking about is the rate of warming if the Sun has done that before you've got a good point about the Sun if the Sun has never before caused the rate the rate only the rate the rate of warming stop talking about this on stop talking about the general cycles of the earth unless you're also talking about the rate the rate all right now to balance it out then they get then CNN gets to the climate models and they say the deniers say that the models are not

[14:43]

the deniers say that the models are not accurate because you can't even if you can't even predict the weather how in the world can you predict the climate over a hundred years and here's how the scientist defended the models he used an analogy he used a coin-flip analogy now if you're trying to let me give you a persuasion tip if you're trying to argue that the models are accurate and that they're science-based here's an analogy you don't want to use a coin flip because what I hear coin flip my brain does not say accurate sounds like guessing the whole point of a coin flip is guessing right so I'm not I'm not arguing the details of the analogy I'm just saying that if you're

[15:43]

analogy I'm just saying that if you're trying to if you're trying to defend science the worst way to do it is to make people think about guessing and when you say coin flip my mind goes to guessing now one of the macro complaints I've had about climate science is the scientists for reasons I've not quite understood are terrible at making their point with the models anyway and when I hear somebody defend the models with a coin flip analogy which I'm going to explain for a moment so you get the full picture that is really bad communication so independent of whether the point is good that the models are accurate or not independent of the facts the way it's being communicated is the least credible way you could ever communicate this thing and here was the argument if you were gonna guess anyone coin flip it would be hard to guess you know you know it would be no more than luck if you got it right but if you looked at

[16:44]

you got it right but if you looked at all coin flips over time you could accurately say that they're close to 50/50 and so that was the analogy used for why the climate models are accurate on average even if individual ones are not possibly the worst most irrational argument you will ever see because first of all as someone else on Twitter pointed out a coin flip is using a coin which weighs the same on both sides and really does have a chance of coming out 5050 a climate model is a bunch of stuff we don't know about it's not a coin the analogy is useless so let me get the according to that analogy I could take a bunch of random data and it didn't matter if it's random so long as I took the average does that make sense how about how about a lot of people

[17:49]

how about how about a lot of people picked let me give you another analogy just to show how useless analogies are here's how I would have said it's very hard to pick a winning lottery number right you'd agree right it's very difficult the odds are away against you to pick a winning lottery number but if you took all the numbers that people picked and you took their average it would be exactly the winning number wouldn't it oh wait it wouldn't be that's stupid you can't average all the numbers of people picked for their lottery picks and and when you're done you got the right lottery number the one that's a little bit closer to the climate model situation now when you hear that analogy do you say to yourself my god that's a terrible analogy Scott yeah that's my point my analogy is terrible because climate models are not like lotteries do you know what

[18:51]

are not like lotteries do you know what climate models are also not like in any important way coin flips coin flips you can't you can't defend your climate models with analogies I don't care what the analogy is I don't care how clever the analogy is it doesn't help it just makes things worse because the analogy itself gets attacked so here's the thing if the best science can do to defend their models the climate models is to say it's like averaging a coin flip that's kind of like giving up that sounds more to me like we can't really defend this stuff we're just giving it give you an analogy it's just complicated and you know we can't even explain it to you we don't even know what we're doing so I've explained this before that if you make a climate model and it's way outside the range of of the other models what do you think happens

[19:51]

other models what do you think happens to your model I mean common sense what happens to the models that are not in the range of the other models well if it's just a little bit below the range maybe they keep it and say okay the range is a little bit more than we thought it was but it what if it's way outside the range way low or way high what do they do with that model well they sure as hell don't keep it if you've ever been alive on this planet for more than ten minutes look around you you're surrounded by humans what do humans do when they have a situation where they've got some data that even they don't believe because it's you know it's a model and it doesn't agree with the other model so you can't be too confident about it what do you do when it doesn't agree with the range of the other models you're sure as hell don't keep it all right you sure as hell don't keep that model and you get rid of it so if you're

[20:52]

model and you get rid of it so if you're flipping coins and and you want them to come up heads what do you do with the ones that came up tails you act like they didn't count all that coin fell on the rug rug rug flips don't can you know climate scientists could flip a coin a hundred times and have been say it came up heads a hunter time because they just throw out the tails every time it comes up tails you go oh you know my finger slipped it's really heads every time alright I'm also getting into my weekly argument with people on Twitter on the question of fentanyl so there's a new argue article showing why it's so difficult for China to make fentanyl illegal in China because if you change just one molecule apparently the law says that's a different drug so even if China made the current versions of fentanyl illegal it

[21:52]

current versions of fentanyl illegal it would take ten minutes for the bad guys to make a different version that's legal to which I say if China is using that excuse to not go after fentanyl that's the same as not going after fentanyl because if we know that something is only a molecule or two different from fentanyl do you are you telling me I can't I can't make a law to make that illegal I'm pretty sure I could make a law that says if it's fentanyl or fentanyl like or the or the changes in the the fentanyl composition are are trivial it's still all fentanyl it's all illegal how hard would that be so when I see an article in the press that says well it's very hard for China to make it illegal and I say why don't we have that problem in this country we don't have that problem do we all we did

[22:53]

don't have that problem do we all we did it was yeah make the analogues illegal as well so I have been saying that if China will not go after their own dealers that we have a moral we have moral authority to do it now the question of whether it's a good idea is separate but morally given that these fentanyl dealers are mass murderers forget about solving the drug problem I do not favor killing drug dealers because it will reduce the supply of fentanyl it might but I don't think we can count on that I I support killing mass murderers because they're mass murderers you don't need a reason to kill a mass murderer right if there's a mass murderer and you know who they are if the country.the owns them won't kill them you have an absolute moral obligation to kill them yourself and

[23:53]

obligation to kill them yourself and China will not go to war if we kill their drug dealers for them why because it's not good for China do you think China wants to say dammit we're so bad at policing our own fentanyl dealers that another country had to come in here and kill them for us I'm so mad at you I will I'll go to war against you for doing the thing that we couldn't do that we also wanted done that's not going to happen but suppose the Chinese government actually wants the dealers to be killing Americans for some opium or revenge destabilize the West reason and look then let's say we killed their dealers that they didn't want killed then what are they going to do are they going to publicize that they were letting their dealers kill 30,000 Americans a year are they going to say damn it you can't kill our mass murderer who is killing thirty thousand of your Americans per year because that's in our country no there's

[24:56]

because that's in our country no there's no chance of that they would label it a suicide if we kill China's top offense and the leaders you know with the CIA or we hire somebody to do it or however that stuff like that is done if we did it and and the Chinese government found out by far the most likely outcome is that they would label it a suicide why because the last thing they want is to is to publicize the fact that they're killing 30,000 Americans a year and they know they're doing it they're not they're not going to play the game of dying on that hill that has a very small hill and they're not going to die on it because they're not stupid it has also been pointed out as I did that we went into Pakistan and killed bin Laden did we do that because we thought killing bin Laden would stop a terrorism no we did not believe that we

[25:56]

terrorism no we did not believe that we just believed he's a mass murderer and that it is American policy that if you can find the mass murderer you can kill them doesn't matter where they are we're gonna go get them wherever they are I'm pretty sure that our our forces helped with El Chapo and who was the other Mexican drug dealer so I don't think it's unprecedented to go into somebody's country and kill their mass murderers for them if they won't do it I mean you have to give them the first choice to do it and we've done that but at this point we have moral authority to kill their dealers if they're not acting against the fentanyl I analogues all right yeah why isn't fentanyl a problem in China tell me that tell me why the Chinese

[26:58]

tell me that tell me why the Chinese themselves are not losing a million citizens a year to fentanyl because they make it over there and apparently China liked opium opium was a problem so we know that the Chinese citizens will do drugs if they're available and fentanyl is cheap it's easy to make it's widely available so somebody says it probably is a problem I don't think it is I think we wouldn't heard about it because if it were if it were a problem in China given the the size of the population and and how easily it would be available since they make it there if it were a problem in China it'd be killing a million Chinese people a year and the government take out the dealers because they know who they are so the only possible explanation for what we're seeing and of course I might have some evidence wrong right so if there's a fact I have wrong here and that can be corrected I would change my opinion but given the facts we

[28:00]

change my opinion but given the facts we have in evidence it appears that the Chinese government allows the fentanyl dealers to do what they're doing so long as they don't do it domestically is that not obvious it also means that the Chinese government knows who's doing it and they have permission to do it so long as they don't do it locally now I could change my opinion if I find out that China is also losing massive amounts of people to fentanyl overdoses if that's knowable but I don't remember hearing president cheese say yeah we're going to fix this right away because it's a massive problem in China - so even if this were not a problem in other countries we would certainly get right on this because we don't want to kill a million of our own people with this fentanyl and by the way we know the names of the people doing it now we know where they live that's literally true in

[29:00]

where they live that's literally true in America we also know the actual name of the guy who was the main fentanyl dealer we know his name and his effectively does serial number you know whatever whatever the Social Security version is for China we actually know who it is China knows who it is so I don't think we can trust anything and of China on the offensive question fentanyl China as I call them but who knows maybe we'll do something good alright are there is there anything else happening today so we've got the fake Muller investigation there's not much else going on is there
what about Tucker what's the question are the Google hearings well the Google hearings are they today and are we going to or those public are

[30:01]

and are we going to or those public are the Google hearings public and has it happened yet well that'll be interesting see the the interesting thing here's the interesting thing with Google in order for Google to defend itself from distorting democracy they would have to argue that their main advertising model doesn't work do you get that the only defense that Google can have about taking over democracy the only way they can say no no we're not influencing democracy we're not we're not illegitimately changing the results of elections the only way they can defend that is to say that advertising doesn't work and that's their product that's what they sell but that's what Google sells is influential advertising so I

[31:04]

sells is influential advertising so I don't think there's any question about the facts meaning that yeah there there's some censoring going on and that there's some preferential treatment and that there's clearly Google has has a secret algorithm that the government is not aware of so well let me just say that suppose this situation existed suppose you had a situation where a Google said we're not making we're not making decisions about what the news is or what people say it's in our algorithm and even we don't really know exactly what the algorithm does because it has so many variables let's say that they're that their explanation was something like that that even Google doesn't know what its algorithm is going to do in terms of how it influenced the election would that be okay that wouldn't be okay so there are only two possibilities Google has to either claim that

[32:06]

Google has to either claim that advertising doesn't work their entire business model in order to claim that they're not influencing elections as well or they have to claim yes of course we influence things but we don't do it in an intentional way because even we don't know what our algorithm is exactly doing we're just trying to you know we add a variable now and then as we see something that needs to be tweaked but we don't know how the whole is going to come out because it's just too complicated now if they say that they're effectively the government because if Google is determining with their algorithm what people think and what people think influences how they vote and what they tell their government to do then Google is admitting to effectively being the shadow government which of those two ways can Google go can they throw their business model under the bus or can they say yeah we

[33:07]

under the bus or can they say yeah we are running the country but in a random way and we don't know how we you know we don't know exactly which way it's going to go they only have two explanations and both of them are devastatingly bad for Google now if they've got a third explanation somebody says wow that's quite a leap which part I'm open to being wrong about what I just said but you need to give me a reason crime bill will get a vote interesting
can I tell you more about my new book loser think yes I can so loser think the way I'm defining it for my book is not just that you're wrong about something it's an unproductive way of thinking meaning that you can be right or you

[34:07]

meaning that you can be right or you could be wrong but that's not what losers think is about it's about a style of thinking that is unproductive let me give you a an example if if you're thinking with analogies you are not persuading and you're not really even being rational so who wins when you use an analogy to defend let's say a climate science prediction model so that's a perfect example so the the pro science person who used the coin flipping analogy to defend their climate models was using one example of loser think it was not an analogy that could possibly ever persuade so why do you do it the only thing that happen was the people who were not persuaded became even further not persuaded and the person who made the argument looked less credible who won nobody won

[35:10]

who won nobody won loser think is when nobody's winning there's no there's no strategy to it it can't possibly get you to anything you want all right so you'll see more on that anyway the purpose of my book is not just that you might learn some things you didn't know about how to analyze things the purpose of it is that you can take a picture of it with your phone and tweet out the page that is mocking the person you want to mock on social media so I'm actually designing the book so that as you're reading the book you can say oh my god I just got into this argument with this person on Twitter so you take your camera out you'll go click and you tweet it back to them say alright here's the argument why what you're doing doesn't make any sense and it will be basically a tool to reduce the worst examples of unproductive thinking and remember unproductive

[36:11]

thinking and remember unproductive doesn't mean right or wrong that's a separate question unproductive means even if you were right your argument is ridiculous and if you're wrong is even more ridiculous so it's a ridiculous way of thinking let me give you the the set up how many of you in the comments tell me tell me what discipline you're trained in okay so in your comments give me an idea of what disciplines you're trained in so that could be philosophy the law engineering scientist all right but it also could be English major or whatever alright so give me so we're looking at the the various disciplines go by on the screens so look at them so you have medicine engineering engineering finance information technology engineering agriculture education sales etc all right now the people who are saying law and

[37:15]

people who are saying law and engineering and science and philosophy what do they all have in common in economics I haven't seen economics but I'm sure that's in there so what what are these disciplines have in common engineering law philosophy economics what they have in common is that in the process of learning those fields you are taught how to think when you learn economics for example you learn how to discard as some costs you learn how to compare things you learn how to look at money over time so that you can discount its value in other words economics engineering the law philosophy in different ways they teach you not just a bunch of facts but how to think now let's say you had a different major agriculture so somebody said that they have an agricultural background does

[38:15]

have an agricultural background does agricultural education teach you how to think probably now so much all right I mean not more than the general way that a good education is good for your brain you know in a general way but in economics for example they actually teach you how to compare things and when you're you're on the internet you continually see people who don't know how to compare things let me give you my best example if you think that a president doesn't matter which president is could be Obama could be Clinton could be could be Trump no matter what President you're talking about if you say this president is doing a bad job you don't know how to think you've never been trained in the ways of thinking because you can only say that this President did a worse job then a different president who was doing the same job at the same time if there is no

[39:17]

same job at the same time if there is no different president doing the same job under the same circumstances at the same time you have no comparison there is no way to know that president Chopp Trump is doing a good or bad job you know unless he shoots somebody in on Fifth Avenue or something right but within the normal realm of doing the president's job you can't really tell because there's nobody else to compare it to now you can tell maybe the the outlier kinds of things but in general you can't tell that a different president would have been better for the economy you can't tell that a different president would have been better or worse for climate change you know right and right down the list there's no comparison right now if you learned everything you know in you know English class you know let's say you had an English major or a let's say a Russian literature major would they teach you how to compare things

[40:18]

teach you how to compare things accurately well prob not right suppose you are a scientist you're trained in science would you know how to compare things probably yes science is a discipline where you do learn how to get rid of bias you know at least how to think about things that doesn't mean you're right every time it just means you've learned how to think philosophy very similar engineering similar right so there are there are a number of disciplines that actually teach you how to compare things and therefore how to think there are a larger number of backgrounds of majors and and experiences that don't teach you that but here's the trick here's the important thing if you don't know how to think you don't know it you can't know that you're not good at thinking that's not a thing because until you until the people who learn to think because they

[41:21]

people who learn to think because they took a law degree or an economics class or philosophy engineering the the the the the types of education that literally teach you how to look at stuff and figure it out if you haven't done that and all you have is your common sense you're lost common sense is first of all an illusion but common sense is not good thinking they're very different common sense is almost the same as bias they're very little difference all right so the basis of loser think the book I'm writing is that they're that if you've been exposed to a number of the fields and which people are thought to think correctly you're in a much better situation to understand the world and if you have not gone through those disciplines you end up saying that something is good or bad without comparing it to anything and if you're

[42:22]

comparing it to anything and if you're doing that you're crazy let me give you a simple example sunk costs if you had not studied economics for example maybe you would not know that money you've already spent should be ignored in your decisions because it's already spent you can't go back in the past but people who are maybe English majors or agricultural majors make majors might say dammit I spent all that money I don't want it to be wasted so I'm just gonna keep keep sending putting some more money in there until it's not wasted anymore yeah opportunity costs is another concept of that economists and finance people learn but you might not learn that in English class like buying yeah gbtc at the top correct
by the way I've I trimmed in my Bitcoin Holdings after I did my job of stopping

[43:23]

Holdings after I did my job of stopping it from going up anymore if you went to college chances are you were exposed to different ways of thinking yes but very different between in an economics major and a will say Russian literature major I don't think that they're learning the same stuff
all right I think I've said what I need to say for today and I'm gonna go do something else and I will talk to you later