Bumper to bumper boom pump up and on the lumber, lumber, hey Lou everybody good morning happy weekend what a terrific day it's a terrific day to be alive and to be joining me for a coffee with Scott Adams and the it's the best thing ever. It's the way to start your day, get your dopamine running. Are you ready? All you need is a couple of more glasses, sign the Chelsa tanker Thermostat last, a canteen of vessel of any kind and fill it with your favorite liquid, the dopamine hit. Here it comes go.

He let me tell you my best idea, but I haven't tested yet I have an idea for dealing with snoring. Now it's for people who don't have, let's say something the issue and it combines technology with hypnosis. Are you ready? I don't know if this will work, but it's based on so you see what are they called earbuds from apple they're, great little product, so my idea uses a product like an ear bud. It can actually be the ear buds, but let's say is optimized for sleeping. So this was not too good for sleeping 'cause. If you put your head on it, it can fall out and might not feel comfortable. So imagine something like an air bud that built to figure era comfortably and you can sleep on a pillow it'll be fine

and all the urban will do is listen for the sound of your snoring and when it detects it, here's the cool part. Your earbud will whisper into your ear, a pre recorded voice. That is your own telling you what to do so might say. Turn on your side. Just very softly turn on your side, and it would be you talking to yourself while you're half asleep or mostly asleep,. Now what would happen in the long run now, the first three times it happens, it would probably wake you up. Did you hear rolling your side? You be like well in the wake you up in the light, okay neutral on your side, what happens after the the hundredth time that your own voice whispers in your ear, Scott roll on your side. After the 100th time, this is my hypothesis

to the hundreds time, your own voice in your own head whispers to you to turn on your side. It won't wake you up anymore, but you'll still turn on your side. Now it's a hypothesis and it could require Cem some different sentences. So maybe it's something like your stop snoring. Maybe it's something like breeze. Maybe is suddenly like breathe through your nose. But whatever the messages are, and you might have to experiment with the one, the theory is that you would effectively hypnotize yourself that the the trigger you heard, which is your own voice, the most khampa edible thing you'll ever hear. Is your yourself talking to yourself. You'll find this very persuasive one of the ways I discovered this is by listening to my periscopes on playback. I got to tell you.

That listening to the sound of your own voice, if you're talking about something this interesting, is more fun than it should be because we love ourselves when we listen to ourselves. Talk we're also we're saying things the sound brilliant to us and it is very compatible with us now. This is based on the concept of pacing in reading. In the end, we have no so sudden and persuasion. If you want to persuade somebody first, you match them, you might match their breathing. You might match their body language. You might match the type of words they use you might match. Do you style that they speak? You know, so you you look for as many things as you could match, especially their opinion. You match the route and then once you've done enough matching called pacing. You can start saying things that they don't already feel or believe and they're more likely to go with you because you've matched them so far. So this

is taking that concept to yourself. Just the message in your gear, a pre recorded message from yourself what to do, and I think it would translate into staying asleep and still still react. So that's the test. I give that away to the world for free. Somebody wants to make that and you probably make it out of an ear bud in an app on the phone, and you don't even need a new piece of hardware if you're willing to sleep with an ear bud in alright. I'm going to give you my opinion of the three most credible voices in the world on politics. All right, so here are the three most credible people in the world. In my opinion, on politics number one Joe Rogan number, two Dave Chappelle. Number three Whoopi Goldberg. Why do I say that.

I say that because the three of them. Clearly are willing to listen to data and information and they're clearly willing to go against their own team when it's obviously a good idea. So I'm not saying that you should believe what any of those three say. So I'm not I'm not suggesting that you should match their opinions. I'm saying that they're kredible mean they, even if you don't like their opinion, they have the ability to go against their own team, it's very rare and when they go against their own team, that comes off as authentic and it comes off as credible and in the case of Joe Rogan, I don't even know if you could say as a team I mean he's he's so he's so intellectually, I would say

I don't know, I don't even know what word for him. So he sort of you sort of occupies the high ground pretty much all the time, which makes it impossible to identify him with with specific politics, because there's always a high ground and that's a little bit of both of those he just lives there. So does Dave. Chappelle Dave she just lives in the high ground is willing to call out his side will call out your side and you care and he seems about equal, be willing to go either way and then Whoopi Goldberg sort of caught my attention by going against Deborah messaging and calling that out is just a horrible idea. So I just to give them a little a little respect for being the three most credible voices in the world. Somebody saw somebody mentioned TIM Pool and he would be up at the top of the list too. Have you heard the the hashtag decoupling coupling

this? It's not a Hollywood term for a divorce, although it sort of this decoupling refers to discontinuing trade with China, and so I think, you're going to see that hashtag decoupling more at the moment of the three people that I know who talk about it, the most or Gordon Chang. Who is an expert on China, Lance Bass who is earlier, I think, he's China's biggest enemy right now. I guess he's hedge fund guy and me there are probably other famous ish voices speaking out

against China, but the three of us, I know, are actively saying: let's cut the cord um, but I'm gonna add something to that, because you know China has their famous social credit system, and that seems like a horror. Well, if that's a good idea how about this, China, Nobel, if we take your idea of a social credit, score and say well, that's good! How about the world creates a trade credit score, in other words, having a score two to measure the trace made worthiness of other countries. Why not? It doesn't already exist because it might already exist right. Maybe it needs a little attention if it already exists, but a decoupling, if you coming it late, refers to just discontinuing trade did with China, because China is a an enemy and not a trading partner. We know this because

the fentanyl they're shipping here killing fifty thousand people a year in this country we know, but from stealing our I p, we know it from the bad trade deals. We know it from their cyber attacks and their military. You know emphasis at the moment. So that's what the couple against so here's my suggestion. Let's take China's idea and if somebody are you doing it, maybe just give them some attention, but the idea is to give our training partner country is a score for their their speech meeting in this we would measure such things as are you at war with our country? That would be a check box now they're sending enough fentanyl our way from China through Mexico to the United States that I would say. Yes, China is at war with the United States because they could

stop it. They choose not to. We don't need to know why they could stop it. They choose not to that's the end of story. You don't need to know the details. They choose to send weapons of mass destruction in the form of fentanyl to our country. They could stop it, they just choose not. That would be a failing grade. So, no matter what else you were doing right. That would be a failure, so I would imagine our checklist for trade worthiness. The trade credit score would have a number of things like do used to steal. I p, do you have intellectual property protections? Do you have a court system that an adjudicated things in the business context? Do you have a tariff system which is fair? Are you doing dumping on our shores? It would be that sort of questions. My guess is the China would be deemed unworthy.

We just did an objective of trade and I think that that would be so devastating to them in terms of intellectual inflection, international um, commerce, that I say: let's do it. Let's put a little pressure on: let's rank our countries, you know who do you want to do business with Japan A plus all right? What do you want to do? Business with uh, the great Britain, France, a plus yeah Amsterdam? You know all and devil in slate plus, Norway, Aplus Sweden, a plus China F. All right. Let's talk about a sharpie gate. Scharping gate has to be the day.

This of all scandals controversies. I don't know what it is. It's so dumb, here's the thing, so the president is tweeted out a c get em clip where there weather person calls Alabama as being at risk. Cnn on the air said: Alabama was at risk from the Dorian storm. That's what Trump said. Right now, the I guess no at first said no, but now they they've come out with a new statement today or yesterday. This says: well, we should not have said that Alabama is not in danger. We should have stated as more of a

you know, a statistical risk which would allow that there is some risk, that's bigger than what we're saying will happen. That's what I said. So what did I say when I looked at the controversy without even digging into it? I said that if, if, if you're forecasting can't tell the difference, we do in the storm is going this way where the storm is going. That way, then it's certainly fair to say that Alabama is at risk because you don't know where this Forbes going and it's certainly somewhere within that larger risk statement. So the president was one hundred percent. In my opinion, one hundred percent directionally accurate when say at the risk extended to Baby Alabama at one point and now no one has confirmed that so. It doesn't matter who drew on it with a sharpie is the least important thing will talk about. I can't

anything less important than that, but I guess that's good bill Maher made a big point about um how the Democrats keep talking about health care, but they don't talk about the american Diet and doing something to reduce the number of people who are eating themselves to death. I got I gotta go with Bill Maher on this now at this same time that I'm willing to say you know we don't live in the country where the government tells you what to eat. We do sort of live in the country where the government tells you what to eat they kinda. Do it's just not a law uh. The government gives you the nutritional pyramid which may or may not it's no longer a pyramid. I think it's something else now, but they do have nutritional guidelines that people largely ignore

and they do require food labels which people largely ignore um. So I don't know what else the government could be doing except education. Perhaps you know if, if the government said we were going to start educating, let's say preteens on on how to eat properly know we're going to. Is that part of the school curriculum? I would say pretty good idea pretty good idea, but if it goes beyond education that be a problem all right. Let's talk about. So I created an article that suggests that rehab doesn't work that well, meaning that the success rate of rehab is pretty low and there are different ideas for why that is. But I'm going to going to add an idea to the mix.

Here's the question: can you determine from DNA there's somebody has addictive possibilities. In other words, if I were to test everybody's dna on this periscope, could I tell with a fair level of certainty from the dna which of you have the potential to become drug addicts in which, if you are unlikely to become drug addicts, I believe the answer is yes, I believe the answer is that we can tell now. Let me suggest this. If you're a drug dealer- and you were to sell one of these illegal drugs to someone who had tested their dna and had communicated to you in some fashion- I don't know if it's just imagine this as a thought experiment. Somehow you do it could be because they they were a pin on their chest. That said,

my dna makes me an addict. I've told all their friends and you happen to know. Let's say the situation is the drug addict knows that they're selling a drug to somebody who has addictive personality based on DNA. Should that not be the death sentence for the dealer because you sell if you're a dealer and you sell a drug to somebody whose DNA this is somewhat optional, whether they become a drug addict and that person goes ahead and take too much your drug and dies. I would say: well that was a drug dealer and a drug user who are using something like free will and choice and they something they there was a bad choice and somebody died. Well, I think the drug dealers sold used to you know answer to the law. In that case, just for dealing drugs that really illegal, but I don't think that's the death penalty seems to me that if they unknowingly sold the drug

to somebody who had that dna structure well, it was a bad risk, but everybody knew what they were doing still illegal. But if you're a drug dealer- and you knowingly sell your drugs, someone who has addictive DNA is that the same, because that's a lot like killing someone. I think that should be treated as attempted murder and should be charged that way, because if you give a drug to somebody who has addictive personnel me- and you know it's sort of attempted murder right, so I throw that out there. I think we need a lot more, a lot more knowledge about why why rehab works with some people? Why not I'll tell you? What might hypnosis professor taught me, which is one of the probably the most useful less

you will learn anywhere at anytime and I'm going to share it with you? Are you ready for one the most useful lessons about human beings? You'll ever hear my hypnosis instructor was overweight and people asked him about using hypnosis to quit smoking and to lose weight and the instructor said. Here's the deal paraphrasing. Hypnosis does work for losing weight and it does work for quitting cigarettes and it works in exactly the same ratio as every other method. In other words- and this is how he first

explained it if somebody has decided to quit smoking or they decided to quit, wait and the key word is decided not wants to know not desires too not has a goal of, but has decided once a person has decided. There are a lot of methods that work. Hypnosis is just one of the methods you could use your Chantix and in your your weight loss your weight watchers. If you've made the decision you're going to poke around until you find a method that works and you'll probably get you'll, probably get some good results if you have not decided, but rather you think that that uh technique you are going to select, will change your mind for you that somehow the process of chewing

getting dumb or the process of going to rehab, where the process of joining wet weight watchers. If you think the process of doing those things, is going to put your mind and decision, it's not. Is going to remove the decision from you, 'cause you're, going to say well I'll just go through these steps and I guess something without good will happen. I haven't really decided, but I've just decided to go through these processes. That's probably the single biggest thing. Somebody has to decide that the getting off the drugs is better than being on the drugs and that's a tough sale. Let me tell you from my stepsons um example. My accent I tried to get him into. Rehab did get him into rehab a few times so rehab, of course didn't work for him and he went along with it 'cause. He was a minor at the time and he sort of had to do what he was told,

but he made it clear from the moment he went in then he wasn't planning on stopping. You know he would say some words like oh yeah. I want to stop doing the hard stuff, but I'm certainly not going to stop drinking. I'm certainly not going to stop. You know smoking marijuana because I know I want to be alive and not be able to party, and he said that directly and often you said I prefer death to a life where I can hang out with my friends. Have some there's smoke some pot? He said it often and he said it and he never. He never got off of that and every time that we took him someplace where he could get clean for awhile. He would tell us directly when I come back. Of course, I'm going to be drinking and of course, I'm going to probably smoke cigarettes and, of course, I'm going to smoke marijuana because those things are so bad,

that's just being a normal normal young person and of course everybody tried to convince him that that's addict talk. That if he doesn't understand that doing those other things guarantee, you will do the the harder stuff if he doesn't understand that no rehab can help you, you you're you're, basically on your way death. So his death came as unfortunately no surprise because he told us a system in his strategy that didn't guarantee you would have an overdose, but it made it very likely and that's the path he went. So somehow we have to get past the deciding to do it, and I don't know how to do that. Okay, here's the fun which virtual thing that's happening at the moment. Some of you were watching that bill. Pulta who's been doing the internet philanthropy,

as well as the blade authority stuff doing good work for the public. He's made his money he's trying to give back he's trying to promote the idea of giving on the internet by creating example. Building up his his twitter followers try to make it more of a robust. You know a national thing. And I've been helping along the way and apparently a bunch of Q. Followers have started digging up just crazy conspiracy theories. It seems to be mostly the queue people and they're imagining that he is being funded by Soros crazy because I guess Soros may have some investments and

Pulte homes which bills not even directly involved with this moment um, but everybody can invest in a public company right. Investing in a public company is just business as usual um, so um I'm going to give away one thousand dollars of bills money so he's agreed to. Let me give away one thousand and the way I'm going to do. It is in the spirit of experimentation. All right, so I'm going to experiment- and I haven't quite figured out what angle I'm going to take- how to do this. It's just an experiment now, one of things that people complained about and I get, I guess what they're saying is they they found it unpleasant to see people compete, competing to get the money, and so I'll look for some suggestions so before I make this public before I tweet about it. So anybody just so

ction of what would be a way to give away. One thousand again just experiment see what happens, what kind of reaction you get um, oh yeah, the other, crazy q conspiracy thing is that it's all big data mining operation and all he's doing is trying to collect any names to sell or something nothing like that's happening right. I know bill personally, we've talked a million times before before burden during the internet. Flat philanthropy has not to do with George Soros as nothing to do with data mining. These are these are pretty crazy things, so I thought I would add my voice to it in case anybody is wondering I've looked at. I've looked into it, probably more than most of you have

and assure you that, as far as I can tell it's exactly what it looks like on the surface, a rich guy who wants to figure out what the best way to give back and he's experimenting. If you don't like the way, it's gone, that's what renting means! There's no point in ab testing things if you think is going to work on the first try or that it won't have any problems on the first. Try, everything's gotta risk everything's got a problem, so we're experimenting we'll see what happens.

So what would be a good alternative for giving away one thousand to somebody you could be helped without causing other people to feel like they're competing for it in some way that you should was inappropriate. So I will take your suggestions and then we'll experiment see what we can do all right, um he was giving is inefficient. Well, it depends what you think is the goal. If you think that the goal is for bill to efficiently give away his own money, then I would agree that the twitter stuff is inefficient, but that's not the entire goal. The giving away his own money, I think he's please. Seven million dollars will give away way of his own money, is part of the larger exposure to the idea of trying out the model of internet, giving trying to see if it can

become more viral and just see if it becomes a more robust system. So the point that is growing his twitter followers, so he has more of a footprint, more notice ability to make the philanthropy more noticeable. So that's why I'm helping with and that's all um I don't get the problem. It's like any scholarship, not everyone who wants one gets it right. You know this is more of the. It is one of the things that makes me sad about human beings, because the people who are complaining about this- and I understand that you don't want people who are struggling to have to be. You know like you much he's in the cage, dancing for a peanut or something um and again remember I used monkeys in a generic sense. It does not refer to any particular.

Anybody can be monkeys in my world all right, so so I'm sensitive to that. But if anybody has a better idea, I'd like to hear it all right, um I'm going to tease something that's coming up. I will be involved in another charitable, giving um and I'll tell you more about that, because you're gonna, your head, will explode load when you feel when you hear whom what I'm doing it with, and I hope that's part of the fun alright all right, I'm just looking at your comments here. Yeah, you know the ideal way to give money and the way I've typically done it be in in my own basket. You know if you have money, a lot of people, ask you for it and there's some situations where it makes sense,

but I prefer to give money in a situation where somebody has a temporary problem and they have a plan. So if they have a temporary problem and they have a plan to get to their job local, were you know they can go to a job interview if they get this solved. So if they've got a plan, there are far more likely to go to him. I'm I'm less likely to give money to someone who just can't can't pay their bills all the time, because it is not going to make a difference, except for you know today and tomorrow, all right. Medical bill fund yeah we'll just find something, that's good leverage, so let me make he may be the way I'll do it is that I want to look for the thing that has the greatest leverage, not the greatest need, but the greatest left,

which is the the small amount that could make the biggest difference so tweet at me. If you've got an idea and all think about this today and all all twenty something later and that's all for Now- and I will talk to you later.