Episode 1081 Scott Adams: Mental Illness vs Coronavirus Opinion, Biden Decomposes, Axios, More

Date: 2020-08-04 | Duration: 49:58

Topics

Find my “extra” content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com

Rough Transcript

This is an auto-generated transcript and may contain errors.

Transcript

---

• Obama’s confidence in Biden’s heart

• Psychoticism analysis major error since 2012…oops

• Dems won’t share their excellent plan for COVID19?

• New video of George Floyd arrest

• Is BLM discredited at this point?

• Citizens protected Portland police chief’s home

If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
[0:13]

good morning everybody it's time for coffee with scott adams the best time of the day except for any other times that i come on periscope which is the other best time of the day and
and what better way to get the day going we get all kinds of fun stuff to talk about sure there are tragedies in the world but you can't spend all your time thinking about tragedy sometimes you gotta gotta get a little relief gotta give your brain a break that's why you're here to give your brain a break we're going to talk about the
the fun and stupid and funny parts of the world but first into in order to enjoy it fully i recommend that you find yourself a copper bug or a glass attacker cells or steiner canteen jugger flask a vessel of any
any kind fill it with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure the dopamine of

[1:13]

unparalleled pleasure the dopamine of the day the thing that makes everything better it's called the simultaneous zipper and it happens now go
ahead it feels as though there's still the same amount of stupidity in the world but it's not bothering me as much that's what the simultaneous sip does for you yeah let's talk about some fun things there's a company that has developed a face mask that can translate into other languages when you talk how cool is that don't you want a face mask
that can translate into other languages while you talk i would never i would never talk english again i'd just walk around talking other languages and see if other people knew who i was but i think this mask that can translate into other languages probably is the beginning of the cyborg age

[2:13]

age where we just cover up all of this stuff all this head stuff you know once you've got something over your eyes which will be your augmented reality glasses you've got something shoved in your ears which will clearly be your hearing devices you've got some kind of a hat because of the sun you've got some sunscreen on you which in a way is sort of a chemical modification and then you've got your face mask on you're good to go full android capability the other thing i would like to see is i'd like to see a mask with echo cancellation so that i could have a conversation with my mask on that only goes through my phone and nobody around me can hear it even if they're sitting right next to me is that possible probably not but i'd like to have it and how about a mask that lets you speak commands into the mask to operate anything that's a voice controlled including your phone yes full and full uh cyborg it's coming

[3:17]

yes full and full uh cyborg it's coming well yesterday the president announced that they would make permanent the telehealth uh regulations i guess they they made it during the pandemic which was still in they made the telehealth legal across state lines there may have been some other things that they did but now that's permanent now how hard would it have been to make telehealth permanent across state lines if we had not had a pandemic it hadn't happened yet it was it was the most obvious thing you could ever do i mean it's obviously good for the public it's obviously going to lower health care costs it's obviously going to make health care more available but without the pandemic and you know and the opportunity that a crisis created i don't know if it would have happened or at least not so soon it's a pretty big deal so

[4:18]

it's a pretty big deal so you see the president now sort of assembling the parts of something that would look sort of like a health care i don't want to call it a plan but more of a health care series of initiatives and executive orders and whatnot that are all designed collectively to to create more competition uh more transparency and and fewer regulations now if you said to me can we get to universal health care or something like it by just taxing everybody and saying i don't know sounds pretty expensive plus it might not ever pass but can we lower the cost of health care by making a more competitive industry by doing a variety of things that just remove competitive uh roadblocks to which i say apparently so
so apparently so i don't know that this gets us to full coverage but if you don't get the cost of health care down

[5:19]

care down how could you ever talk about covering everybody i mean you know if if the president let me put it in stark terms prior to um the pandemic and let's say we get back to there in a year or so i think uh something like nine percent of the public was not covered by health care and although this next thing i'm going to say doesn't make perfect sense it just gives you a size of magnitude that's all i'm trying to do if we could cut the cost of health care by 20 for everybody that kind of in in just a conceptual way frees up money that would be enough to cover everybody now if if i save money on my health care that doesn't mean i'm going to pay more taxes to cover somebody else but you can see that it is probably more important to bring the total cost of health care down first to have any chance any chance of covering everybody and i do think we

[6:19]

covering everybody and i do think we should cover everybody
let me ask you this you know there's a big
big question about whether illegal illegal citizens in other words undocumented there's a conversation about whether undocumented people should give free health care because apparently they can walk into the emergency room and get it and i suppose if they don't have any health insurance then maybe the hospital doesn't get paid so what if there was some kind of a deal where any kind of undocumented person who got health care had to give a dna sample and the dna sample you could anonymize it so you don't necessarily have to know it came from this person oh but maybe you do yeah let's say you do you you do know where it came from and let's say that's the cost of free health care yeah we'll give you free

[7:19]

health care yeah we'll give you free health care but we've got to get a sample of your dna now there would be two benefits from that one the the crime from um well the crime in general would be much reduced by the the more dna we have of people but also if we have massive dna samples we can find you know who is more or less susceptible to coronavirus who is more or less susceptible to this or that so the healthcare outcomes um so i'm just gonna this is just pure speculation i won't make this a claim it's just something to think about is the opportunity for improving not only crime solutions but health care is it big enough that if you had such a large group of dna that you were you were collecting and they were non-citizens but it was just sort of their part you know it was in a sense they would

[8:19]

you know it was in a sense they would give up privacy in this one way in return for helping the outcomes of all the other undocumented immigrants because whatever health outcomes were good for the country and the world would be good for everybody i'll just put it out there because you know you don't always have to pay money for a service perhaps you could pay in terms of your dna because it does have a pretty pretty large economic value but obviously you're not going to give it up unless you have to or unless you volunteer to just put it out there
um i was watching a clip do you remember when biden had this you've televised event where you just talked to obama so it was just obama and biden together having a conversation for a campaign event and i was listening to that yesterday one of the things that obama said was so telling

[9:23]

obama said was so telling just listen to this i i wrote it down i think i got it approximately right and obama said the thing i'm confident about is your heart so he's talking to biden the thing i'm confident about is your heart now that's an interesting choice of words and i think i've told some of you before that uh hypnotists learn that people reveal their hidden thoughts in their choice of words so if you look at the choice of words as opposed to what the sentence says you can often get an opposite meaning from what the choice of words were in this case can you think of any situation in which obama was confident in general about biden just confident about everything confident about his decision-making confident about his health confident about his policies confident about his heart when he use this choice of words the thing i'm confident about is your

[10:24]

heart because i think if i were confident about everything i'd say something like you know i've never been more confident in a candidate to be the right choice right you'd say something like that i feel like obama is signaling as clearly as you can that he's not confident in biden's brain that seems really really clear if you read between the lines
of course we can't know we're right but i know i'm right isn't that the way the american way is to have no way to know that you're right but you still feel completely confident just the same you should adjust you should adjust your confidence and my confidence by knowing that i couldn't know what anybody's thinking i can't read his mind but it is a generally useful thing to look at choice of words and
and you can definitely beat the averages if

[11:25]

you can definitely beat the averages if you're guessing that you you know what's going on all right uh the american journal of political science published a correction so that's not too unusual right i think half of published papers end up not being true so they published a correction this year saying that a paper from 2012 oh that was a long time ago 2012 has an error and here's what the error was
was uh they had done a study and they decided that conservatives were had were ranked higher on psychoticism now i'm not sure exactly what psychoticism is but it doesn't sound good and it turns out that when somebody reviewed their work they had some kind of a math or analytical error and it was actually the opposite so since 2012 there have been 45 different citations and articles or whatever saying that conservatives have been shown to be

[12:25]

shown to be have higher psychoticism but they had actually just flipped it it was actually liberals who had more psychoticism and since 2012 that study has been you know used as something that that tells you something is true it was just reversed this is a subset of my theory that all data are wrong now i like to say all data is wrong because as a professional writer i'm one of the people who is responsible for
for putting things into common usage proper english data is plural so you'd say the data are wrong just sounds like a douchebag i'm sorry you just sound like a douchebag when you say the data are wrong if you say the data is wrong
you don't sound like a douchebag but you are technically incorrect now it's my responsibility as i said as a professional writer

[13:26]

a professional writer to uh give cover to the rest of you so this professional writer is going to start saying the data is wrong because it just sounds better i'm sorry it just sounds better and i get to make that choice you get to tell me i'm wrong but just understand i'm doing it intentionally that rule has to change so i'll go first the data is wrong and that anyway my point was it's basically true that all of our data for public decisions is wrong let me say that again it's it's essentially true that all of the data we use for public decisions is wrong and not just wrong in a little way wrong as in the reverse wrong as in that makes you look in the entirely wrong planet for a solution i mean wrong in the most fundamental way anything can get wrong

[14:27]

fundamental way anything can get wrong and it's pretty much everything almost everything and you keep that frame in mind because we're coming from a world only months ago where we thought okay i obviously sometimes data is wrong but most of the time smart people are looking at it and you know the critics have looked at it and there's peer review and there's you know you've got respected journalists the new york times are reporting it so yeah i get it sometimes information can be wrong but not most of the time i mean most of the time is right right no it's wrong all the time it's always wrong and until you realize that the data is always wrong for public decisions sometimes for science too but for the public decisions it's always wrong all the time and the reason is that you never see data unless it gets filtered through

[15:27]

data unless it gets filtered through a person and that person is either incapable or unwilling to tell you the truth but they will certainly tell you what they want you to believe and if you hear my dog's sleep barking that's what that little yelping is
and so just keep that in mind it's very similar to the hypnosis the hypnotist inversion if i could call it that when i first took hypnosis i went into the class assuming a similar thing which is that ninety percent of the time people are rational and they're using their logical facilities and maybe ten percent of the time there's maybe one issue that will make one of us crazy but in general we're these rational clear thinking people just sometimes we get a little crazy once you learn hypnosis you realize it's the reverse that we're 90 irrational and that little speck of time that we're rational it's only because we don't care about it

[16:29]

it's only because we don't care about it we're only rational when we don't care it's just a emotion-free decision oh yeah two plus two does equal four i'll take four so just keep that in mind that the data is
is always wrong and we learned that in 2020 but it's a tough lesson uh we'll talk more about that in a minute um i've decided that it's getting harder and harder to treat obvious mental illness as an opinion all right the antifa people we talked about this before the there may be some people who are technically sane but the people getting arrested the troublemakers you know a lot of the most active that's just mental illness can we stop saying that they have a different political opinion can we stop saying they have a plan you know chaos and uh anarchy are not really a plan that's mental illness until somebody could describe how

[17:30]

could describe how anarchy gets you to a better place for anybody including the anarchist it's not really a difference of opinion it's just mental illness and there's sort of a temporary version of this you know that's trump derangement syndrome i don't think we have the luxury of thinking of trump derangement syndrome anymore as just a difference of political opinion it really isn't there there's something else going on now that doesn't mean that those people who have trump derangement syndrome have an organic mental problem but they might have a mental problem in the same same way that ptsd you know can scramble your brain the same way that you some kind of fear some abuse i guess that'll gets to ptsd but the point is that your lived experience can make you crazy about some topics and i really think that when we talk

[18:32]

and i really think that when we talk about this as differences of political opinion or differences and who can analyze things better or who has better data which isn't really a thing i i think that we just do a disservice because we're just looking in the wrong place these are genuine mental health problems and i just think it helps to think of it that way um i've i feel a bit angry at all the people who know what president trump should be doing and the plan that he should be implementing that would fix all this coronavirus stuff because according to the democrats there is such a thing as a plan that they have in their minds that has the standard of how to do a right and if only the president would use that plan that's in their heads things would be a lot better and why don't they tell us the plan

[19:36]

why don't they tell us the plan now you say to yourself scott scott's got they have in so many ways look at this link and then you'll look at the link it'll be some other country had a better result so therefore if we do what that other country did we'll get the same result if you think that you should not make decisions in public because all the other countries are so fundamentally different in so many different ways we have no idea what worked and didn't work with none we have no idea what worked we also don't know if their numbers are true and we also don't know how the game ends because we're at halftime
did australia really really do a great job
job on the coronavirus hard to say because they're having a major flare-up right now if you have a flare-up doesn't that mean you didn't do a good job or does that mean you did do a good job because you only had one flare-up and now if they tamp this back down you'll say okay good job again

[20:38]

you'll say okay good job again how do you even evaluate these things because if we don't have a way to stop the virus there's no plan that looks anything like something that could work besides what we're doing which is to keep the economy healthy and take our losses but try to keep them as low as possible so every time you hear somebody say why doesn't the president have a plan first of all they're lying because the plan is crystal clear i've explained it many times every part of the plan is public and publicized it's the most it's the most clear plan you could ever have now you know there of course there are discussions about you know opening up the schools etc but the federal government is very clear you can't say that the federal government but you know trump doesn't know exactly what he wants he wants schools to open we knew that we were trying to save the health care system from collapsing and we succeeded

[21:40]

system from collapsing and we succeeded and we knew that we were going to try to buy time until you know vaccines or therapeutics
and as long as we're as long as we need an economy we don't have the option of closing it now let me explain to you what the democrats seem to explain as their their plan uh and i'll have to call in a democrat to explain this dale dale can you come over here i've uh we want to learn about the democrat plan for fixing everything because we know that mr trump he's doing everything wrong so dale can you come over here and explain um how to do it right
sure sure all you have to do is wear masks well dale that's it just have to wear masks as most people are wearing masks and all the places that

[22:42]

wearing masks and all the places that seem to matter
well maybe if the president wore a mask i don't think that's it that's it that would be your plan your plan would just be to be the president and wear a mask and then everything would be okay no no no you also have to close you got me you gotta close the economy okay dale so if you close the economy does that have any costs associated with it as well
would any people die if you crushed your economy in the long run
no we're talking looking at the big picture we understand that too many people have died but i'm trying to understand your plan in which you close the economy are there no costs associated with that

[23:45]

are there no costs associated with that in terms of long-term well-being of the people and even lives can you say more about that
um dale you're gonna have to talk say something say something on the topic of the economy closing and what that does to people's lives and their health their mental health and their ongoing well-being can you please speak to that la la la la la la la la
thank you dale so we have this absurd situation which people who don't know how to compare anything don't know how to analyze anything are informing the public let me give you an example
so there's big news today axios did an interview one-on-one with

[24:45]

interview one-on-one with i guess swann was talking to the president they had two chairs you know apart from each other and there's one uh part of that that's getting a lot of play which is the president shuffling some papers with some graphs and trying to make his case about the statistics now ah this did not go well if you saw the clip i think you'd agree with me didn't go well didn't go well for the president but here's what i would um i would recommend never put the president of the united states in a chair with no desk so the the no desk part is important never put the president of the united
states in a chair on camera and give him multiple pieces of paper with complicated data on it and ask him

[25:45]

with complicated data on it and ask him to speak to it don't ever put the president in that position if the president had said hey can somebody print out you know those statistics so when i'm talking to this reporter you should have said no and figured out something else to do because let me tell you
you this is not a good look um i've got some data here and uh let's see about infections or uh the rates and other countries do not put your president in that situation all right now i'm sure you know if if i knew the details he probably you probably wanted to be in that situation because he probably wanted the data in his hands but we don't want we the public i think i can speak for everybody in the public we the public don't want to see a

[26:46]

we the public don't want to see a journalist and a politician arguing about statistics do you want to see that because the journalist didn't understand the topic you know any more than a journalist would and probably the journalist is still back in let's say january 2020 thinking where the journalist imagined that the data could be right whatever the data said i think the journalist might have been under the impression that there's some kind of data that would be accurate that's not qualified to talk about data on tv the president had more data than he needed and probably would have been better served by picking one or two statistics he could remember off the top of his head and just sticking to it whatever those statistics are but shuffling the papers don't ever do that again now if he had a desk in front of him

[27:47]

now if he had a desk in front of him where he could lay out his materials so there's no shuffling then that's good those are just notes to remind him how to talk but don't put him in a chair with no table and a bunch of papers in his hand my god don't ever do that again uh that's my advice all right um did you see the uh oh well so much to talk about today um have you noticed that writers can't tell the difference between an argument and an insult have you seen that it looks like this if i say to a writer let's say on twitter if i say something like what should trump do differently with this coronavirus you know what what what should be a better plan than what's happening now you'll get some good answer like that well he's an unstable authoritarian who denies science to which i think i think that's just an insult that didn't really quite address my

[28:48]

that didn't really quite address my question and that i think part two is you got to get rid of trump and get somebody who is not a not one of those unstable authority authoritarian science deniers which of course he isn't um and i don't know if they can tell the difference and i just quoted by the way uh carl bernstein so they're they're trotting out the worse than watergate guy who just comes out to say things are worse than watergate or that trump is nixon and it is just so funny when that guy comes out like i he uh he used to bother me but now it's so funny it's like oh they got carl bernstein out to say it's worse than the watergate every month or so you can renew that play all right here's an idea that someone on twitter suggested that would solve the the pandemic and it goes like this we will take the technology we don't have oh okay i guess that's hard

[29:50]

oh okay i guess that's hard we'll take the technology that doesn't exist okay but imagine it did so i'm i'm uh just wading into this so i don't have enough information on this but the claim is this that if you did less accurate testing but more of it especially if you can get instant or near instant answers you can imagine the situation where kids going into school you know swab something and then look at it and it either tells them they have coronavirus or not but it wouldn't be super accurate and not as good as a real clinical test and the claim is that although they would not be super accurate there would be sort of accurate issue enough that you would catch enough cases that you would at least get the you know the the r the r value the the spread value below one and then then you'd have something there and so my question is does there exist such tests which although not perfect

[30:54]

such tests which although not perfect are good enough and cheap enough that you could test for a dollar and have an answer in a minute or five minutes or something do those exist because i get a lot of yeah don't worry about the false negatives and don't worry about the false positives the idea is that if the inaccurate tests pick up something you could then do an accurate test to confirm but at the very least you'd say well we might have a problem with this class so you guys go home until we sort it out so you could imagine somebody's saying yes just use saliva so you can imagine that if these tests existed if they were cheap if they were widespread if everybody tested once a day no matter what you could get on top of it but it it feels like a magical thinking solution because i don't think we have it i don't think we have tests like that i would love to see something from the president or the task force

[31:56]

president or the task force telling us how close we are to anything like that or any kind of news coverage of a company that's making something like that now the cousin to that is doing uh group testing so that would be if everybody everybody in the class you know spit into something or swab something and then you take the entire class and test them as a group if you find nobody in the class has it well you're done but if you find that somebody in class has it then you can test them individually so you can you can get big groups of people with one test so long as it ends up being negative um so that's another path but i believe our experts are probably up to date on all this stuff and if this were practical i have confidence that somebody like burks or fouchy or somebody would be saying hey let's do all these tests all right so i don't think it's practical but i wonder how far we are from it here's an argument that i heard

[32:56]

here's an argument that i heard yesterday from somebody far far smarter than i am far far smarter and when i hear things that are sort of above my brain's pay grade i like to run it by you because some of you can handle that stuff and it goes like this so we've got um there are two types of hydroxychloroquine tests that we know of they're really well done tests that test the wrong stuff and then there were lower quality tests that test something closer to the right thing which is early use and then all three drugs with the zinc and azithromycin
etc now the argument is that the ones that are uh really good tests show the hydroxychloroquine is not effective but since they tested the wrong stuff that doesn't really tell us much they tested people who were hospitalized didn't give them all three drugs gave them too much

[33:58]

drugs gave them too much so those tests didn't have much value but what about all the tests i think there are 65 of them and growing probably more by now of tests that were low quality but seem to indicate that hydroxychloroquine works if you saw one test that was low quality meaning it doesn't it's not a confirmation but it showed hydroxyclean works what would be your rational opinion of that your rational opinion should be one study it's like a coin flip because half of studies are wrong not reproducible so really i don't know if i know anything it's like a coin flip maybe works maybe it doesn't but suppose you had 65 tests and a whole bunch of different ways of looking at it and all the tests were different but by coincidence they had by by a great majority maybe not everyone but by large majority they seem to show it works

[35:00]

they seem to show it works and the argument is this and i'll see if i can present it right if you do one test that's not reliable on
on hydroxychloroquine there might be several different reasons why it's wrong if you do 65 tests you've got a whole bunch of different ways that each of those tests will be wrong and the speculation is the smarter person says is that enough to tell you something and that's what i'm going to present to you is it because each of these tests no matter what their variables were or how they looked at it seem to indicate the same direction that there's some effect but given that they're all flawed but here's the key they're all flawed but they're all different takes you know in other words they did a different thing if all the people doing different things individually were not reliable but by coincidence they all seem to show some effect or

[36:01]

they all seem to show some effect or most of them does that tell you something and there are smart people who say yeah that does tell you something it's certainly enough to give it a try given that it's inexpensive and won't kill you so i put that out there is that a is that a reasonable uh approach all right um by now most of you have seen the new george floyd body cam video um and of course it's you know two movies on one screen situation everybody's seeing what they want to see i would say at this point there isn't the slightest chance that the police officers will be charged with murder or if they are there isn't i'm sorry there isn't the slightest chance they'll be convicted of murder i think they've already been charged but when you see the video it's just crystal clear that this was a horrible mistake now they could be guilty of i don't know not trying hard

[37:02]

guilty of i don't know not trying hard enough to revive him of of not you know following some procedure i don't know maybe but i'll tell you what it's not it's definitely not murder it's not even close and here's the the kill shot you know if if those police officers want to save a lot of money on lawyers i can present their whole case for them it goes like this george floyd was saying i can't breathe before he even got in the car which is before he got on the ground which is before they were on top of him his breathing difficulty he said directly he said it out loud and it's on video he was having breathing problems before any of the bad interactions encountered and if it's true that the fentanyl in him was three times the overdose amount then he was going to die no matter what but

[38:04]

no matter what but um i would certainly i would certainly question whether the police officers did enough to keep him alive once it was obviously edited he had some kind of a problem so that that's certainly worth looking into and i think that's really disturbing part of what we saw in that video or maybe was a different one is that one of the
the bystanders who saw george floyd look like he was unconscious one of the bystanders was screaming at the police to check his pulse just screaming at the police and the police were just ignoring him and the bystander was completely right he's saying check his polls check his pulse you're not even checking his pulse and that that has to be answered for okay that really needs an answer and if the police are if there's some penalty for whatever that was about i still have to hear their side of it but whatever that was about that's not good right so certainly the police officers

[39:05]

police officers are not in the clear but it's really clear that they weren't out to murder anybody that that much is completely obvious um and i found that uh this is my opinion i think black lives matter is completely discredited at this point does it feel like that to you i'm not talking about black people of course i'm just talking about black lives matter the the movement isn't it totally discredited at this point because it just seems ridiculous and it also is uh the lowest priority in the black community now if you tell me it's not i'd say oh well i see the problem how will the black community ever make progress if they can't tell the difference between their highest priority which would be education which would be getting rid of the teachers unions which would basically make everything better from economics to to violence to health outcomes just everything

[40:06]

everything versus the police violence which will affect x number of people as tragic as it is as much as we need to make that better it's the smallest priority it's the smallest priority so how am i supposed to take serious seriously a group that says black lives matter while they're making the entire country focus exclusively on the least important part of black lives that's exactly like black lives don't matter because if i said to you all right which of these is more like black lives matter is the one that does the thing that doesn't make any difference sorry didn't that slip down or is it the thing that changes everything the thing that can really fix things for generations to come which would be education which would be getting the teachers unions uh out of the log jam or creating the log jam so there would be competition so that the charter and other schools could actually teach people

[41:06]

actually teach people and that they could have good lives so i refuse to take blm seriously until they take themselves seriously until they can figure out what their top priority is and stop focusing on the smallest one i'm not going to take you seriously and i don't think you should either but happy to help on the big problem which is teachers unions
did you see the video of there were some protesters they were trying to make their way to the seattle police chief's house private house and uh some citizens with a pickup truck and a very large gun or more stopped them and send them back you have to watch it and one of the pro this is the the money shot here one of the protesters on the video when confronted with the armed citizens protecting the police said quote we're peaceful you pointed a gun at my face and then the resident with a gun said

[42:07]

and then the resident with a gun said that's why you're peaceful [Laughter] that's why you're peaceful because i got a gun at your head now how bad are things when the citizens are protecting the police that's literally what happened that that's not i'm not i'm not overstating that this was citizens protecting the police that's a crazy upside down world now this is the reason that i'm less concerned that a lot of people that this will spread to rural areas and spread into the suburbs this guy with a pickup truck that's why it won't spread into the suburbs because it doesn't take many of those guys who just stand in the road with it with a weapon and say how about we're done how about you're done here it doesn't take many of them for uh for the the spreading to stop and frankly the people with the guns don't

[43:07]

frankly the people with the guns don't give a about the cities so the cities may be in trouble i guess facebook just bought a whole bunch of property in new york city for future operations so facebook thinks new york city will be a good place to live it's not like the cities will go away i just don't think they'll ever be the same
how about how about this um how about that that's all i've talked about today all right um the best way to signal in public that you don't understand anything about the world is is to compare how the united states is doing on the coronavirus to any other country or any other two or three countries so let me say this as clearly as i can so you don't make the same mistake if you think it means something to compare how the united states is doing with the coronavirus to any other country whether they're doing better or worse if you think it

[44:08]

doing better or worse if you think it means something you don't understand really anything about how the world works it doesn't mean anything we don't know why other countries are doing what they're doing we don't know if their numbers are accurate and we don't know if they will flare up later and we're just on different schedules for flare-ups none of that's known we also could look at what they're doing and say okay they did
did x y and z but x y and z have not been studied meaning that we don't know exactly what things work and what don't we don't know if the culture is different we don't know you know what exactly the factors are could it be the vitamin d the hydroxychloroquine that they may or may not be using could it be who knows so if you find yourself doing that hey what about taiwan you should not make decisions in public because you just can't compare you know island nations to other nations etc can't be done but as i was saying

[45:09]

etc can't be done but as i was saying before could we find out something if we looked at the whole group of let's say all of the all the countries that did well after it's done we don't know yet who's going to do well when it's all done new zealand could be the biggest hotspot in the world in a month you just don't know but if we looked at them all eventually we might be able to tease out of the numbers like well it wasn't obvious at the time but it was this or that that made the big difference we don't know that now so we'd just be guessing um that is all i've got for now get your weight down that is right um let me give you my best tip for losing weight would you like that this for some of you this will be this will change your lives and i mean that i mean that literally the next thing i'm going to say given that there are 3 600 people watching probably a hundred thousand people will watch this eventually out of a hundred thousand people there

[46:11]

out of a hundred thousand people there are some number of you who are going to hear what i say next it will just totally change your life it goes like this if you're trying to lose weight don't treat your cravings and your hunger as the same thing meaning that your cravings usually for sugar are not really a genuine hunger and so what i recommend if you're trying to lose weight is that first you work only on your sugar cravings but you eat as much as you are of things that are good for you you can't eat too much broccoli all right so fill yourself up with you know lean fish and broccoli and nuts and stuff that's good and don't ever let yourself be hungry just work on one at a time let's say you've got 10 sugary things you like it's like oh i like ice cream i like cake i like candy whatever whatever it is that your problem is and then just first week or two just get rid of one of the sweets that's it
it eat as much as you want you might even

[47:12]

eat as much as you want you might even be gaining weight you're even eating the other sweets you just got rid of one then get rid of another one once you've worked yourself down to there's only one suite left that you've allowed yourself you're not going to want to use so much of that that it makes a difference and by then you'll be close enough to be able to just knock it out if you wait about my experience is about two months and that thing that was the most delicious thing in the world will look at gross and i did i've done this experiment time and time again with the snickers candy bars so my biggest addiction is a snickers candy bar and when i'm having too much sugar the the feeling i get just biting into one my whole body comes alive i mean the the it's just physically delightful in a way that it's hard to explain but that's only if i'm still hooked on sugar and no matter how good you are at getting off the sugar you may have

[48:13]

getting off the sugar you may have relapses i do it all the time then i have to work myself off it but at the moment since i've been off more than two months i can hold those snickers in my hand and imagine what it would taste like and it's just gross and nothing changed nothing changed except that i waited two months and then the craving went away so work on your craving by decreasing your sugar things as well as your simple carbs like white rice and bread and stuff like that so just start decreasing them until those are gone you may have even gained weight because you ate so much broccoli and salmon and nuts and then if that's your diet broccoli and
and salmon and nuts adjusting that down a little bit you know ten percent or whatever so that you your your calories are in line exercising a little bit more it's a lot easier so that is my advice divide and conquer never ever ever work on a craving at the same time as hunger

[49:13]

hunger like actual hunger you don't want to deal with two enemies on two fronts at the same time divide and conquer that little bit of advice for the hundred thousand of you working watching this probably at least five thousand of you just said holy crap would that work some of you are going to try it it works now i can't guarantee that any any plan or any diet works for 100 of people that would be crazy but out of 100 000 people i probably just changed at least a thousand lives fairly fairly significantly so that's why i do this that's what it's all about and i'll talk to you tomorrow