I really respect Scott. It takes a big man to publicly acknowledge when he has been wrong, and who doesn't shirk away when faced with uncomfortable truths.
@@beauregardrippey5508 Indeed. The whole system is based on how much more a few oligarchs can squeeze the commoners. They love open borders to bring in even more to squeeze, and you'll be canceled for xenophobia for complaining.
I think Scott sort of missed the point about mortgages, it's not about the super rich. Why would a bank give someone in a town like Brighton a 50yr £500k mortgage, if their same models predicts that Brighton is going to be 12' underwater before it's paid off?
Sorry but Scott has some absolutley horrible reasoning here. Like WTF even is this? "When you make a decision you should look at what you fear the most and do the opposite" - What even is this kind of reasoning? This is as irrational as possible. It is just contrarianism. If I need to get some water, but the waterhole is filled with hippos. I fear the hippos because they are really dangerous. So because I fear the hippos I should ignore that fear and go to the waterhole anyway instead of trying to look for another one. "If you can't make a decision because you do not have enough information. Make the decision that makes you the most happy in then short term" - This is also completely stupid. There is plenty of things I can do that make me happy in the short term that I shouldn't do because I might die from it. When you make a decision you have to think about more stuff than just this. It only takes a moment for me to lose my life. It is not a long term decision or plan that kills me. It is one mistake in the worst situation. "No one had enough information about the poke at the time" - That is incorrect. We know now that there was plenty of people that knew. They just lied and never told anyone about it. Scott also fails to understand something. He never actually asked himself "Why are we not having the information"? We where told to be quite and shut up. To "trust the science" in other words. This means only one thing; Questioning what you are told is not allowed. When you are not allowed to question what you are told. When you are not given any information on it. When you are not allowed to determine the risks for yourself if you want to participate in society. This is all signs to that you have enough information. Something is being suppressed. You do not know what it is, but someone is hiding something. You shouldn't go against the cornerstone of science (sharing of data and constant questioning of the data) and free speech if you have noble intentions. It really annoys me that Scott Adams sits there and try to act like he knows how you make rational decisions as if our decisions can never be rational. Yes. Even the big decisions can be rational. I refused to take the poke because it made no sense. There is no reason a 30 year old health man needed this poke. There is no reasons to take a poke where the manufacturers haven't been able to prove it is safe. There is no reason to trust them in good faith when you are not allowed to question this new invention that has never been tried before. There is no need to trust doctors when they say "the natural immune system is useless and offers no protection" when the whole point is to teach the immune system how it should respond. There is no reason to trust the government when they clamp down on descent with authoritarian force. There is no reason to listen to government decrees when they want blanket pokes for all age groups and health situations. Even the poke for pregnant women was recommended, and this is a BIG no no if you know ANYTHING about stuff like this. There is so many MANY reason to not take the poke. It was irrational for people to blindly trust that they are in safe hands. Which we now know they were not. Excess deaths prove it.
I feel like this was post hoc rationalization on his part. Edit: he continues on to not only admit that, but explains that's what he believes everyone does. I feel like I disagree with that. There are certainly times where we behave irrationally and rationalize what we did later, but decisions like these where it's not "on the spot" can be considered and weighed up over time. There may be an inciting incident that forces us to quickly make a decision, but that decision will be based on our natural inclinations, information we gathered, conclusions we've come to, and other factors out of our control. We need not rationalize it afterwards - that's the only decision we could have made at the time.
18:15 for me it was a question of governments getting used to compel things that clearly aren't their business i took it .. but i had a MASSIVE problem with the "nudging" up to forcing
29:22 correct, but the key argument is, insurances offer affordable contracts to places which .. according to those models would be gone within a few decades so if they would believe those models .. they would knowingly burn money
Going by the fear logic, the reason i didnt get the injection because my social anxiety outweighed my near sickness anxiety which was non existant since it was based on all the usual points that get brought up. However i cant be sure that if the injection was in a kind of free amazon deliverable pill form that i would have taken it since we dont live in that reality. Of course its more complex because theres a multitude of different intensities of fears. All that said something i noticed about when it comes to making decisions, sometimes ill flip a coin to decide between 2 things, and i have a rule that if i hesitate about the outcome that i instantly go with the other possible outcome since evidently i already made up my mind. Id say the best faith interpretation of rationalization is that it asks "why" about instinctual feelings so that our consciousness can make sense of what the rest of the brain is doing.
The grocery store is funny if you dont write a list and end going more than twice a week you get more info about what is going on in the larger picture and potential savings may pay for the extra trips..... (of course: who has the time)! And edit is i have an under 10 min to close and step up competitor is withing 20 kms!
4:40 This is true even when you're already in a niche. Take watchmakers for instance. Once you become an excellent watchmaker, you can also learn how to paint dials or lume, or you can learn to capture your work on video for social media. All sorts of things can add value. But you also need to actually be good at your first job 😂
Hearing this, I recall listening to Stuart Wilde's, - The Mastery of Money, - for the first time back in the 90s. Those tapes had a profound impact on my life, and how I behaved around others, and learned to use their own egos against them, - and seeing as how I left school at 14 and retired at 40, it certainly had the desired effect. - First rule to the mastery of money, - have more coming in, than you have going out... - Simple, if you're prepared to work hard, impossible if you're existing on benefits or welfare.
The Gay rights thing has got all the equal rights they want, but they also want the money coming in to keep their jobs so they move on to the next thing which in this case is Trans Rights. Follow the money, God knows what's next if the Trans get everything they want, the mind boggles.
He made an irrational decision and was wrong. In hindsight, he can see that everyone who told him he was wrong was right and he had, very publicly, been a jackass. That's intolerable. Therefore; EVERYONE was irrational, and the people who were right were only right by accident.
What a load of bollocks. Basically all corporate success comes down to a popularity contest or sheer, blind luck. Tall, handsome men and beautiful, skinny women are vastly more likely to be employed in the most senior positions than the most capable person applying for the job. Doesn't matter what your skills are there is a corporate level at which success is vastly more likely to be the result of accidents of the environment and your immutable characteristics than ANY self improvement you may undertake.
I was different on the CoVID thing. I heard rumblings about lockdowns and did some cursory looking into it. Nobody (literally nobody) who was advocating for it had an example where it worked and the specialists for Ebola and Smallpox for the WHO itself were very clear on a “tried them, they made everything worse” line. Weirdly, nobody was willing to hear me out in this. Same basic story with masks but there was at least some fluid dynamics to support that, albeit not perfectly
Agreed. If those people really thought like that, they would have never become wealthy in the first place, and certainly wouldn't be wealthy for much longer.
![Lil Uzi Vert - Chill Bae [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/D7F42F_JM3U/mqdefault.jpg)
It's ok for Scott Adams to be right.
What a terrific guest, well done LE.
"Your job is to get a better job"
That's what I tell all my friends all the time. Glad to hear it echoed by those more successful than myself!
Im a huge fan of scott adams.
Dilbert is right.
This was fantastic, nice one Dan - great interview.
I really respect Scott.
It takes a big man to publicly acknowledge when he has been wrong, and who doesn't shirk away when faced with uncomfortable truths.
I never got into Dilbert, not being party to that office environment, but I'm totally into Scott Adams. 👍
Undocumented shoppers gonna shop.
Gotta make line go up for the corporate oligarchy.
@@skylinefeverline go up, graph go WOW!, everything happy 👍🏻
@@beauregardrippey5508 Indeed. The whole system is based on how much more a few oligarchs can squeeze the commoners. They love open borders to bring in even more to squeeze, and you'll be canceled for xenophobia for complaining.
Black Looters Matter.
Great interview, really interesting!
I think Scott sort of missed the point about mortgages, it's not about the super rich. Why would a bank give someone in a town like Brighton a 50yr £500k mortgage, if their same models predicts that Brighton is going to be 12' underwater before it's paid off?
Because Brighton won't be 12 feet underwater doofus.
I never understood dilbert, but scott adams i get
Since when is it only rich people who live at beaches or get 50 year mortgages? Why would you let him twist your words like that?
Doesn't he realise those people didn't get rich in the first place by being blase with their money?
Sorry but Scott has some absolutley horrible reasoning here. Like WTF even is this?
"When you make a decision you should look at what you fear the most and do the opposite"
- What even is this kind of reasoning? This is as irrational as possible. It is just contrarianism. If I need to get some water, but the waterhole is filled with hippos. I fear the hippos because they are really dangerous. So because I fear the hippos I should ignore that fear and go to the waterhole anyway instead of trying to look for another one.
"If you can't make a decision because you do not have enough information. Make the decision that makes you the most happy in then short term"
- This is also completely stupid. There is plenty of things I can do that make me happy in the short term that I shouldn't do because I might die from it. When you make a decision you have to think about more stuff than just this. It only takes a moment for me to lose my life. It is not a long term decision or plan that kills me. It is one mistake in the worst situation.
"No one had enough information about the poke at the time"
- That is incorrect. We know now that there was plenty of people that knew. They just lied and never told anyone about it. Scott also fails to understand something. He never actually asked himself "Why are we not having the information"? We where told to be quite and shut up. To "trust the science" in other words. This means only one thing; Questioning what you are told is not allowed.
When you are not allowed to question what you are told. When you are not given any information on it. When you are not allowed to determine the risks for yourself if you want to participate in society. This is all signs to that you have enough information. Something is being suppressed. You do not know what it is, but someone is hiding something. You shouldn't go against the cornerstone of science (sharing of data and constant questioning of the data) and free speech if you have noble intentions.
It really annoys me that Scott Adams sits there and try to act like he knows how you make rational decisions as if our decisions can never be rational. Yes. Even the big decisions can be rational. I refused to take the poke because it made no sense. There is no reason a 30 year old health man needed this poke. There is no reasons to take a poke where the manufacturers haven't been able to prove it is safe. There is no reason to trust them in good faith when you are not allowed to question this new invention that has never been tried before. There is no need to trust doctors when they say "the natural immune system is useless and offers no protection" when the whole point is to teach the immune system how it should respond. There is no reason to trust the government when they clamp down on descent with authoritarian force. There is no reason to listen to government decrees when they want blanket pokes for all age groups and health situations. Even the poke for pregnant women was recommended, and this is a BIG no no if you know ANYTHING about stuff like this.
There is so many MANY reason to not take the poke. It was irrational for people to blindly trust that they are in safe hands. Which we now know they were not. Excess deaths prove it.
I feel like this was post hoc rationalization on his part.
Edit: he continues on to not only admit that, but explains that's what he believes everyone does. I feel like I disagree with that.
There are certainly times where we behave irrationally and rationalize what we did later, but decisions like these where it's not "on the spot" can be considered and weighed up over time.
There may be an inciting incident that forces us to quickly make a decision, but that decision will be based on our natural inclinations, information we gathered, conclusions we've come to, and other factors out of our control. We need not rationalize it afterwards - that's the only decision we could have made at the time.
Amen.
9:10 yep. or as ive been saying for decades now; mankind is an emotional being occasionally capable of rational moments.
Cool to see ol' Scotty on TLE. Dont have to always agree with the man to respect him.
Dilbert comic/TV should be preserved as cultural artifact
Undocumented shopping. A wonderful way of putting it.
H Y P N O T I Z E M E D I L B E R T M A N
18:15 for me it was a question of governments getting used to compel things that clearly aren't their business
i took it .. but i had a MASSIVE problem with the "nudging" up to forcing
clot adams: i'm afraid of a bioweapon *injects a bioweapon* bravo clot!!!
29:22 correct, but the key argument is, insurances offer affordable contracts to places which .. according to those models would be gone within a few decades
so if they would believe those models .. they would knowingly burn money
what got much better after the first few minutes !
Very interesting 🙄🙄
Never relax
Going by the fear logic, the reason i didnt get the injection because my social anxiety outweighed my near sickness anxiety which was non existant since it was based on all the usual points that get brought up. However i cant be sure that if the injection was in a kind of free amazon deliverable pill form that i would have taken it since we dont live in that reality. Of course its more complex because theres a multitude of different intensities of fears.
All that said something i noticed about when it comes to making decisions, sometimes ill flip a coin to decide between 2 things, and i have a rule that if i hesitate about the outcome that i instantly go with the other possible outcome since evidently i already made up my mind. Id say the best faith interpretation of rationalization is that it asks "why" about instinctual feelings so that our consciousness can make sense of what the rest of the brain is doing.
Good job Dan. Scott is a great catch, I'll subscribe for the rest.
The grocery store is funny if you dont write a list and end going more than twice a week you get more info about what is going on in the larger picture and potential savings may pay for the extra trips..... (of course: who has the time)! And edit is i have an under 10 min to close and step up competitor is withing 20 kms!
4:40 This is true even when you're already in a niche. Take watchmakers for instance. Once you become an excellent watchmaker, you can also learn how to paint dials or lume, or you can learn to capture your work on video for social media. All sorts of things can add value. But you also need to actually be good at your first job 😂
No blacks in this interview, just the way it should be.
Hearing this, I recall listening to Stuart Wilde's,
- The Mastery of Money, - for the first time back in the 90s.
Those tapes had a profound impact on my life, and how I behaved around others, and learned to use their own egos against them,
- and seeing as how I left school at 14 and retired at 40, it certainly had the desired effect.
- First rule to the mastery of money,
- have more coming in, than you have going out...
- Simple, if you're prepared to work hard, impossible if you're existing on benefits or welfare.
The Gay rights thing has got all the equal rights they want, but they also want the money coming in to keep their jobs so they move on to the next thing which in this case is Trans Rights. Follow the money, God knows what's next if the Trans get everything they want, the mind boggles.
AY UP LOTUS EATERS
What about having principles?
Clott Adams
The shot is jusr another bioweapon
FYI, I've heard his wife forced him to get the shot.
He made an irrational decision and was wrong. In hindsight, he can see that everyone who told him he was wrong was right and he had, very publicly, been a jackass.
That's intolerable. Therefore; EVERYONE was irrational, and the people who were right were only right by accident.
What a load of bollocks.
Basically all corporate success comes down to a popularity contest or sheer, blind luck. Tall, handsome men and beautiful, skinny women are vastly more likely to be employed in the most senior positions than the most capable person applying for the job.
Doesn't matter what your skills are there is a corporate level at which success is vastly more likely to be the result of accidents of the environment and your immutable characteristics than ANY self improvement you may undertake.
I was different on the CoVID thing.
I heard rumblings about lockdowns and did some cursory looking into it. Nobody (literally nobody) who was advocating for it had an example where it worked and the specialists for Ebola and Smallpox for the WHO itself were very clear on a “tried them, they made everything worse” line.
Weirdly, nobody was willing to hear me out in this. Same basic story with masks but there was at least some fluid dynamics to support that, albeit not perfectly
Surprised he got double jabbed. I thought he was max based. But no hate towards him.
That rich analysis is bs
Agreed. If those people really thought like that, they would have never become wealthy in the first place, and certainly wouldn't be wealthy for much longer.
Scott still trying to defend his positions during the plandemic.