Bump, bump, bump Mmhm, bump bump bump bump bump from bump bump bump phone. Well guess what time it is. Yes, it's time for coffee was Scott Adams. Those of you were lucky enough to be watching this, instead of any kind of our royal wedding or something depressing like a school shooting, it's time for the best part of the day time for some good news time for some freshly brewed group, warm beverage, coffee preferred, but it's time for the simultaneous up. Well, we so let's talk about the whack, a mole style of calling so

so the anything but we're going to use president Trump as our example today and get to teach you a few more ways to spot cognitive dissonance if you're new to this cognitive dissonance, is when a person's brain misfires, because a thing that they thought to be true and they were sure it was true- turns out to be false instead of saying. Oh, I guess I guess I was stupid misinformed and ending ignorant people don't do that? Instead, they rewrite the reality to something strange so that they can still be right all right, but how do you determine when someone is doing that which is their brain is temporarily scrambled in cognitive dissonance,

versus just somebody who's wrong, because they would look the same right. Somebody who's wrong and somebody who's brain is scrambled. They would both just look wrong, not exactly. There are some ways to tell. For example, in my book win bigly, I talk about the the so tell ESO. So when people On with so, what you're saying is followed by the second part is important. The so by itself doesn't tell you that much, but it's the second part They turn what you said. That was reasonable into an absolute, a ridiculous. Absolute. In order to refute you, that's cognitive dissonance, because they've run out of argument, so they have to re write what you said to have a new thing to argue about. You see it all the time

So here's an example, if you say, for example, I believe the prison reform would be would be good for everybody good for the prisoners, good for the public right. Let's say you made that argument and somebody was disagreeing with you and you've made good points. I don't know what the good point so in this argument? I don't know too much about it, but, let's just say you would demolish the other person's argument, who was, for example, opposed to prison reform. That person once having their argument destroyed would say something like this. You're saying we should just let everybody get away with murder right. That's the so tell tell like being a hint or a clue. The tell for cognitive dissonance, the absurd absolute.

That they've changed a reasonable idea of prison reform into so you say just let the criminals go free and murders, ok, okay, right! So you. Save murder now alright. So when you see that that's the person who's lost badly but can't quite wrap their head around the fact that loss than they've invent a whole new world in which you said something crazy, so that they can still be right. But there's a more generic form of this is a little harder to recognize. Teach you. How I learned this in hypnosis class, so many

So when I was learning to be hypnotised, I heard the following story now I don't know if the story is true, it was presented as true, but it's a good example of cognitive dissonance, and even if the story is untrue, it tells the right the role right point end. The story goes that the greatest hypnotist of the Milton Erickson, I had Hypnotize one of his regular subjects that hypnotize a lot and had given her a posthypnotic suggestion. The during a dinner that a group we're having later it was a formal you know kind of a nice dinner at somebody's house she would during the middle of the dinner she would take out of her shoe? and put it on the middle of the table. For no reason that was just a posthypnotic suggestion. Now it is report.

That what during the meal, she did in fact take off your shoes and put it in the middle of the table and when the other guests were that was and said. Why are you putting your show on the table because they were not yet on the the hypnosis they didn't know why she was doing it. She looked at them, and knowing that she had been hypnotised and knowing that she had been hypnotised to put her shoe on the table. This is important. She knew both of those things. This was not a hypnosis where she had amnesia. She knew she had been hypnotised to put her shoes on the table, so she puts her she on the table. Then people say why are you putting issue on the table and she says: well: I've got a flower vases at home that sort of in the shape of a of a shoe, and I wanted to see how the flowers would look at it as she takes the flowers.

From the arrangement and put some in her shoe now from that point on she swore to anybody who had asked no, yes, yes, I understand that the best hypnotist in the world hypnotize me- and he told me to put my shoe on the table, but that's not why I did Why I did it this 'cause? I have this vows. That looks like a shoe that I wanted to see what it would look like perfectly rational, ok, so clearly, if you're looking just from the outside and you hear the story. You said yourself, that's. What's going on there there's this is Person whose brain is temporarily scrambled and they're just doing a quick rewrite to try to make it make sense again but to anybody observing it's ridiculous. So what you look for,

is a reason that would only make sense to the person saying so if you back somebody into a corner in your argument and the thing that they say is something that no one else would think makes sense, especially if it's kind of a a word salad, meaning that it's a bunch of words that go together, and you think yourself well recognize all those words- and I hear them in the sentence and the grammar is- but but none of those words make any sense right. That's a telephone, cognitive dissonance and- and ideally it's not you- it's the other person. But I want to give you some examples that so there was a great trigger for cognitive dissonance this week and you can see who fell for it and who didn't the trigger was. When is the Trump referred to the MS thirteen gang members as animals? And that quote was

in the context and most of the major publications said, he's calling immigrants animals now when people like me push back, but that's not what happened? You just took that out of context. Then a number of outlets AP, I'm CNN, etc. They either corrected or revise their reporting to reflect the correct context. So those were people, the AP. Let's say the AP was not experiencing cognitive dissonance, because when the error was pointed out- and it was clear that the context was gang members when you play the the question and then the answer the AP just said: damn that's pretty bad mistake. We just made their let's. Let's issue a correction, so that's what it looks like when you're, not in.

Cognitive dissonance, alright. But let me let me read you some examples of some people who didn't do so well, so here's a TIM Alberta. This is on twitter. He calls himself the chief political correspondent for politico mag and he says awful lot of reporters screwed up regarding trump's animals. Remarks alright! So so far, that's just a fact: lot of people screwed up, He says it's the result of a media climate that feeds on outrage and speed and retweets it's fair statement, but here's the fun part but it's also the revolt result of Trump's own history, of using racially charged language and the total version of any benefit of the doubt. Now definitely an erosion of benefit of the parts. True, but here he's saying

that, even though the reporters were wrong they were kinda right, not right to because of the the thing that we're talking about, but right, because if it into sort of a pattern, so his pattern of awfulness and racism is clearer and therefore it's not such a big mistake because of film to the pattern anyway. I call this the whack a mole persuasion, meaning that if there's a specific thing you're talking about which somebody says Hey President Trump said in Charlottesville that the use- what is the premises were fine people and you say: well, that's not true. He was talking about people who were pro statue and anti statute and he said they're good people on both sides. He wasn't talking about intifada and the race is being on two sides that that would

grace nobody's gonna, call the the people marching against against the Jews, nobody's gonna, say: they're, fine people when your own family, your Jewish and when Israel loves you and your you know. There's Nothing about that. This is even a little bit sensible, so you could explain that somebody and they could say: ok, alright. Well, ok, I did get fooled on the Charlottesville thing. But what about all the other stuff? You know what about the time he said. Immigrants were animals and then well? No, that was also a mistake. He didn't say it immigrants rebels, who saw them as thirteen or animals and then they say yeah, but look at the and you can go from one thing to another and you can debunk each one and they will still say sure you debug, thou and that one and that one- and you also debunked on that, one that one that one but

there's so many more. The pattern is clear, so I'm going to talk about patterns in a moment and show you how usually you can be fooled, but I want to give you the best example of cognitive distance. You can see. This is from Jonathan Weisman. Who is what is he. Is with the New York Times- and he says so, Jonathan Weisman New York Times. He goes as some who edited the story on his comments. Talking about Trump's comments about animals into them live. I read the transcript Occam's razor, don't overthink! This. The real problem was that our President speaks in non sequiter gibberish. There was no direct linguistic link between Ms13 in his animal remarks,

so. In other words, he's doubling down on the president, not talking about MS thirteen as the animals, but rather immigrants, but look for the word salad right looked so keep in mind that the person saying this is, The editor of the New York Times. So without knowing much about him, I can say the following is true. If he and I took an iq test, you don't score me a you, don't you don't become the editor of the New York Times and lost leisure, pretty Rick and smart. He knows how to write. Probably one of the best editors in the world, because he has a job in which you need to be one of the best writers and editors of the world. So on all those levels he's you know, he's a level above me, so this is not some kind of a generic in so

about this man's intelligence, I believe his intelligence is very high, but cognitive dissonance does not discriminate by intelligence. There is no protection by being intelligent, and now I'm going to read it again and just look for the word salad, this is a person who knows how to edit and speak very clearly, let's see if we did it And someone who ended the story and blah blah blah and let's get to the good part here. Ok, he goes Occam's razor, don't overthink! This. Now. We learned in hypnosis class the people say exactly what they mean, even if they didn't mean to say it right. That takes a little more explanation, but, for example, if somebody has a let's

a secret sexual desire to be whipped. The hypnotist will teach you. Ok, you can determine that that person has a secret preference without ever talking about that 'cause you'll find that they use the word whip in casual conversation more than another person. So you might say how would you like dessert and that person would say it would be great if you have any whipped cream yeah? Do you like the basketball tournament, because yeah it looks like the warriors really whipped the Rockets? So if you listen to language, people are primed by there by their preference is to use a kind of language that are reveals some things about them.

All right so when somebody says don't over think this. What's that mean who, what's it mean exactly to over, think it? He is literally saying: stop thinking, don't overthink it. In other words, they don't think lunch in order to agree with him he's asking you to think less now, that's not what he intends to say he's using using literary language to say: don't overthink it it's it's simpler than you think, but the hypnotist says yeah! That's why he'll tell you he says and that's what the word say, but it's also revealing quite often when somebody sells it tells you to stop thinking right. He goes. The real problem was that our President speaks in non sequiter gibberish. There was no direct linguistic link between Ms13 in his animal remark. No direct

linguistic link, it was literally the answer to the question. Somebody said blah blah question about MS thirteen Trump's answer to that question about. Ms13 was blah blah blah their animals. Now you say: that's not a direct linguistic link. I don't know what that means, but it was an answer to the question so. For someone who is an expert on words and language, very high iq, to somehow miss that it was just an answer to a question and to try to hide that with this word, salad, I'm saying there was no direct linguistic link. He speaks in non sequitur gibberish. So this is our a really clear tell for cognitive diss. So this is someone whose job it is to know the difference between between true

in reality he got it wrong this time, and rather then rewrite his personal history to say: oh geez, I got that one wrong. I guess I got fooled. He doubled down now. Here's the interesting thing. He says that Occam's razor is that it was the simple explanation of what he's saying is something that another gentleman also says and That that that what you're seeing is it was easy to think he was talking in a racist way because of all the other patterns of his racism. Now here's here's the problem with Occam's Razor Occam's Razor says leased in the language for

not not the science version, which is slightly different, but the way we use it in common language, Occam's razor? Is that whatever is the simplest explanation for something is correct? So Jonathan is saying the simplest explanation for the president using the word animals is that he's a racist and that it's just sort of a weird coincidence and people are trying too hard to say that it was an answer to a question. Now here's my thing about or my point about, Occam's razor everyone thinks their own explanation is the simple one. I'm sure there are exceptions, but, generally speaking, I think that my explanation is always the simple one. Let me give you an example, With the question of President Trump being a racist and saying you know that the immigrants or or animals which he didn't say. The argument is that if you look at the whole context, all

all of these different races, things he's done. You know, that's really the clear picture and that's as simple as it can be. If somebody has Twenty five different examples of doing things that sound racist. What is the simplest explanation? The simplest explanation? Is there racist, Occam's razor right, here's another way to look at this gif leave that to you in just been introduced to did something that when he was falsely accused of being a racist and people bought into it, let's let's say that nobody caught onto it like the animals thing and people just bought into it. What would they think? for the next twenty five things that person did that were ambiguous? Would they think to themselves? Oh look, there's twenty five ambiguous things plus this one thing we believe in no, they would say all the twenty five thing,

true and if you looked at any one of 'em they'd say yeah that one isn't so much true, but you have to look at all of 'em. Unfortunately, the way confirmation bias works is that once you're convinced getting twenty five examples. That prove your point is very simple. So the simplest explanation of why there are so many stories of President Trump doing bad things is, he is a racist monster. That's pretty simple here's another one. It's confirmation, bias and his enemies are branding him is that is that complicated? Well, this complicated if you start looking at all the examples, but it's very simple to know how you got somebody examples: 'cause once you get it going all the other examples are just confirmation bias. Let's talk about patterns took me awhile to get here, but this is

I want to talk about. Actually people are under the impression the patterns tell them things. Patterns are a form of thinking and if you can see a pattern of behavior, you know something useful, but here's the problem with using patterns for think but others are not very reliable. Let me just give you an example. Anything out of context could look like a pattern, but you don't know that if you put the proper context on it, you wouldn't be so, for example, it looked like when President Trump said those MS thirteen people.

Her animals were paraphrasing when people didn't hear the gang member part, and they just heard the animals part they sent a ha. If it's the pattern, that's part of his pattern of behavior, but it wasn't. It was just something taken out of context right, there's also a chance there are things called the statistical clusters so, for example, if my small town had you know twice as many cases of a solvable cancer than other towns around here, you were, you would leap to the conclusion: how there's something happening in my town? That's causing everybody had to have a certain kind of cancer, but chance get you that too, because things are not perfectly distributed. They'll just be some people, some places by chance that more.

Some stuff so chance fools you having things out of context foolish you about analogies, here's an analogy during the Vietnam WAR, the N Villa not Fort N Vietnamese had built a lot of tunnels. So they lived underground in tunnels, but it didn't help him that much because when we found the tunnels, meaning the soldiers, they were going there with flamethrowers and dogs and whatever, and they would kill them in their tunnels. Now, Elon Musk is building this hyperloop using these boring things which create big tunnels. So what is to stop the US government from going in there with flamethrowers throwers and dogs and killing all the people who are trying to commute? Well, it's a perfect analogy. If bad things happen in tunnels, this is a

well! Why, when the bad things happen there alright. So this is my ridiculous example, but it's the same as you know, calling in the modern leader, Hitler or Mussolini. You know these these kinds of rose. Analogies are ridiculous, so analogies are not sensible. There, no logic to not based on reason, they're, just things that remind you of other things. So if this if analogies, are fitting into your pattern of behavior, such as people used to say, look at look at the way trumps face looks when he speaks of looks like mustn't Mussolini as fitting. The pattern is filling the batter his His chin he's got a chin. Just like Mussolini confirmation bias will make anything. Look like a pattern once you think you see the pattern. It's all you see. It's all you see confirmation. By

then there's shenanigans, you've got people in the news making up stuff to say a look at all the examples of the badness. Is this person that Huffington Post simply tweeted around an older article in which they had. I think sixteen examples of why President Trump is a racist and I started reading the first four and they were ridiculous because they were literally about other people, and I thought well. This is just an elegance somebody is. Putting something together to give you the idea that there's a pattern now there's also just imaginary patterns. We just imagine things that aren't there for a variety of reasons. Some of them overlap these other reasons, but sometimes we just imagine patterns where there are none and then there are real patterns, but here's the thing. The whole reason we care about patterns is because we think

predict so if somebody is doing the same thing boom boom boom boom boom, you say, oh tomorrow is going to be like that, because we've got a pattern, but here's the problem sometimes patterns predict but lots of times. The pattern is the opposite of. What's going to happen and there's a reason for that, take Nixon goes to China. The reason that Nixon could go visit. China was because his long history an pattern of being tough on Comma some predicted that he wouldn't right so by so by being by doing the thing that he wasn't supposed to do, he found success if we were to look at the pattern of people running for president who did not have prior experience in politics, we would say well. The pattern is, there's no way you're going to get a president, trump patterns, even when they're real ones, even if.

If you go all the facts right, you think they predict, but they don't. This is what we're seeing with the N Korea situation. People are saying, my god: how can you be so dumb as to think that this time things will go right in North Korea? Don't you know that they always promise things and get concessions and then change their mind because they have done that in the past, but the likelihood of them getting away with it again is far far less. Because they have a pattern. It's the pattern itself. That makes it unlikely that the pattern is predictive because everybody noticed the pattern. Do you think John Bolton hasn't noticed yeah? He doesn't notice that there's a pattern that North Korea sometimes changes its mind and we're seeing we're saying the? U S played to this difference right now by saying how about giving us some of your nuclear gave

is not all that you know will will give you a little bit. Will promise you some security but give us some of the nuclear capability just to make sure that you're not not Jack and surround. Now. That's that's not maybe the full answer, but it's part of addressing why the pattern will will break. So when you people arguing that yeah, you have. You have disproven by my one example. I gave you but look at the pattern. These people are sometimes just they can sometimes just don't, have a good point, but lots of times there. It's a cognitive dissonance escape hatch, I can tell you that I can sit in a room with anybody who uses the president being a racist. I could take their top twelve reasons and debunk them so easily that it would be almost entertaining

right. It would be as easy as the as the Trump calling people animals things and, and I've done some of those but we have a whack, a mole problem, no matter how many times you say! Well, that was not real, well sure that one not real Board of the pattern, and you say: well, let's look at another one that was wondering if that was not real. That was not real that once I drill so I've shown you that twelve, the first twelve that we talked about of your twenty five reasons are complete bs. What do you say to usually you have to talk about the other twelve and we so those are all real all right. Let's talk about the other twelve, the phone call twelve. Now, what do you say and I'll tell you what you say

After you have debunked every single thing that they thought was the pattern. They'll say something like this: Occam's razor, don't overthink it Scott look how long it took you for your orchard explanation of why all twenty five things are coincidence, It does take a long time but not the one who made the list twenty five items, long a bullshit. I wasn't the one who made the complexity right. I'm just talking about somebody else is complexity which they've built an of mostly imagination in confirmation, bias and chance and shenanigans, and

etcetera. Yes, someone is saying here of the human brain tries to create order out of random events. Now you're, seeing some people push back, people are saying bullshit, you know your choice, Scott you're your pretzel logic, you're, trying so hard. So I made a claim. Then I can debunk all the warnings sample of the president's past racist behavior, there's one that I can't the book and that's the the housing discrimination case from under the seven

whatever well my view is that whether or not he did a racist thing in nineteen, seventy, whatever whether or not he knew about it, it was a bad thing. You can't you can't. You can't explain our way and center, but very few of us are who we were fifty years ago. So if the question is, who is he today? I don't know that that tells you a lot, because there are very few people who would want to defend their their twenty something year. Old self right, very few of us would want to defend our our younger self. I Wouldn'T- and I would ask anybody else too, so, if you're seventy, I I apply what I call the twenty year rule if you were accused of some bad behavior twenty years ago. I say you know it if you, if you paid for it, if you change your mind, you know

This is the whole point of society in human life and everything that we care about. Isn't the point to get better. Isn't the point to get rid of your rough edges? Isn't the point to become more open minded more, accepting more loving, isn't the point to go from your worst self to a better self. So if you're saying somebody did something awful last week, I'm going to say well, probably who they still are. You know last week isn't that long ago, but if you tell me something somebody did a housing discrimination thing forty five years ago. Really

just trying to make money, it wasn't so much about race or anything they were just trying to maximize their their their income. It's still deplorable. It's still. We have to disavow it. We all have to be on the same side of this housing. Discrimination has no place in the world, but it was forty five years ago So what we, I absolutely disavow anybody who did that fifty years ago, but today, yes saying the central park. Five. What about the central park? Five? That's a clear, vacation that he's a racist in which race was never mentioned, it was about crime. He talked about crime me talk to you say, was tough on crime. Have we noticed that the president is tough on crime all the time he is? He is tough

Crime, all the time doesn't matter who is doing the crime. So when you say a lot about that central Park, five You are following for shenanigans, you're falling for a confirmation, bias um an maybe some of it is out of context. If you don't know the whole story, um was he personally responsible for the housing discrimination? Yes, somebody saying that case I think it was in the 70s was Trump personally aware of that. The people who work for his company were involved in some housing. Racial discrimination, don't know, but I would argue that it doesn't matter right. This is who we are forty five years later now. How long would that be that'd be like forty five years later, I don't know how old he was. I think it was a late 20s

is not really a good indication who we were you remember Robert, I think he was in the KKK before he was in Congress. Why was that? Okay? Because it was a long time ago? That's actually a good enough reason. For me. You know if you, Allow you know, I'm I'm not a believer. As you know, don't I don't conform to any religion, but I'm a big fan of the the christian idea of forgiveness, and you know Okay, you were you were a turd, do hold that against you forever. It's Ok to say somebody was a turd and they got better. I'm ok with that now. If you have examples that are as bad as the housing discrimination,

fall within the last twenty years for anybody weathers President Trump or anybody else. I'd say that's let's, let's talk about that! That's not that long ago, but forty five years I think we can let that go, and I would- and by the way I do say the same thing about Hillary Clinton Right during the election, people were saying what about whitewater and stuff like that, to which I say too long ago. You know, even if bad stuff happened, that's not who anybody is today. Did he ever apologize to those young men? Did he ever apologize to anybody? It

President Trump wasn't apologize and, and he simply neglected to apologize whenever black people were you. You can put that in your confirmation bias to mean something, and it probably would, but if he's a person who doesn't who doesn't apologize, he's saying that Hillary Clinton said black people should heal and called them super predators, to which I say same standard. That was more than twenty years ago. I'm pretty sure and I would hold her to the same standard, which is people. People settle a lot of screwed up things along time ago, but we're trying to get better. That's the point You know you see me on here some of you with my buddy HAWK Newsome, whose in black lives matter,

now, if I were to judge him by any mistakes that he's admitted to you know just the mistakes he's admitted to from his his past. I could not be his friend and I couldn't talk to him. I couldn't have a productive conversation with him, but I don't I don't. I don't judge people by who they were and I wouldn't want to be judged by who I was. I would prefer to be judged by you. She said the blower moles in twenty sixteen yeah. So the deplorable comment was current and you you could rightfully put more weight on that. I think.

All right, I'm just looking at your comments right now. Give me a sense. Was this useful? Do you think it would help you find any cognitive, dissonance in in the wild look for the look for the word salad when you when, when somebody is good at speaking, and normally they can be clear and concise, but in this moment they can't that's a people like so what I'm going to be doing maybe it'll, be a chapter. I'm updating win Bigly my book so when the paperback comes out will have a bonus chapter in it and I think I'm going to go through each of the whack Amole examples of why the President is

horrible person, and just so that there's one place that you can link to or point to and say. Alright, yes, I hear you're. Sixteen examples here are the sixteen reasons why this is confirmation bias, I will tell you that it will be more entertaining than persuasive, because you can't get out of the trap that there are so many of them right that statement, but there are so many of them that that is an inescapable trap for the people, so if there were young twenty five examples of people holding their head of the thing with the bad things, President Trump said and if I do bump all twenty five of them at the end of it, do you think they would say? Well that was pretty good. I didn't think that could happen, but there it was right, I had twenty five reasons that you just showed me that all twenty five are objectively, not what I.

They were I'm I'm done with that. Nobody will say that people and people are not wired. Why they will say yeah, but what about number twelve and you'll say Were you listening? We already covered number twelve. I already how do you why that's not real and they'll say number twelve, what about seven, Just talked about seven hundred. We just talked about it, I just showed you. It was taken out of context. You agreed you grade in their personal, say sure, seven, right, but what about all the other ones? We just talked about all of them. We just talked about every single one. On the list, not listening to Maine and the person will say. I love your pretzel logic. Keep twisting yourself into a pretzel Scott.

To explain all this? Why don't you just stop over thinking it? That's what you're gonna so at least you'll know when who won the argument, you won't change many minds if any, but you'll have fun doing it. How do you change the minds? You don't really? I don't You can change any minds by talking about the details, it's just fun and useful, and I think it should be documented all in one place, so I'm going to do. But primarily for interest in education and entertainment, I'm to change people's minds. Oddly, you would probably have to work on something that had nothing to do with the topic. In other words, if the president simply went onto two successful terms in which he just did a good job and everybody was happy about it

eventually people would say you know that whole racism thing, maybe that was a little overblown, if you work on it directly and say, here's my here's my example and you know I refute it and debunk this you can't get very far. But if you their general opinion of the person. They will rewrite their own history all right. This is sort of an important concept that I said quickly. So I'm going to say it again if you're trying to change people's minds, who decided that the president's a giant racist talking about their actual examples of why they think it probably will never change their mind. They will just be in this cognitive dissonance confirmation bias bubble and they can't get out, but if he can on his own through his good president NG, let's say he just hypothetically, let's say

Yeah denuclearized, N Korea, the economy was the best it's ever banned. These are possible I'm not saying that either these will actually happen, but we're on the cusp of all this being PASA and let's say this is far less likely it. Let's say you got some kind of a good result with IRAN in the Middle EAST, the end of eight years. The people Been calling him a racist right, here's would maybe not have as many reasons that are current. It would start to sound like its aging stuff and they would. Themselves into rewriting their own memory of how racist he was because they want to like him, because he did all these good things. Hypothetically all right. Somebody saying one Williams has the worst confirmation bias. I've ever seen well

you can't really judge the apps. You talk about one Williams, who appears on the five on Fox NEWS and, and they use him ponder things around in other places and writer uhm. I would say this: I'm going to give one Williams a compliment and it's a pretty big one, no, I would say I don't agree with him too often on on his opinions, but he is paid to be the sort of loyal opposition. I mean his his job is to be the the contrarian, the more left leaning person on on the table. So we it's kind of his job to always disagree and that's not always going to be,

on accord right. So it's hard to sort out what is he really believe? Verses? One is his job. You know doing the best job to present the other side of the the issue, there's a little bit different. So here's my compliment. One of talk about this, a lot hello ego. If people think that their ego is who they are that's a loser strategy. But if you think of your ego is just a tool that you can ramp up and ramp down when you need it just whenever it's useful, then you have sort of a super power. One Williams is a perfect example that love or hate what he says lover his opinions, but here's what we can say for sure he takes a job in which is very he's very well paid. The site is sort of a dream job. You know you probably read some articles and shows up for an hour and goes home. I mean it's a pretty darn good job in

and the reason he can do that is that it seems to Maine yeah, I'm not inside his head. But it seems to me he uses ego like a tool if he was does he go? He wouldn't do that job. If he said who I am you know, is I can't be sitting with these people who have these other opinions? You know I can't be sitting here being mocked by people who I disagree with and sometimes they're even wrong, it would be a horrible situation and you would give up the easy best money. You ever had because of your ego, what does one do? Here's my compliment he is operating at a higher level. He is clearly comfortable in the abuse he is comfortable. When he's on the offense he's comfortable,

the defense. Have you ever see them look uncomfortable you don't because, apparently his ego is a tool, it's not something the controls that gave them a super power, and you can see that so easily. That he's he's use that capability to use to great effect. We talk about the spy in the Trump campaign. Well, you know, there's not much complexity to that story and there's not much fun about it, meaning that if we don't know who it is, there's not much you can say, except that it was there and and I'm not sure we should know who it is, because there's a pretty good there's a good argument that says you can't give up your sources, because I

don't get sources, so I think, there's a reasonable argument on both sides that makes it not interesting, but what? What a wall? If you say about the I'd, say the proposition, that we now know what happened, and this is one version of that of the fence. I think this is the judge. Nepal Akon. I think this might be his version. Well, let's just say as my room because some other people have this version that Brennan Clapper in Komi and you know Strock, etcetera, were involved in the an actual effort to to either prevent Trump from getting elected, to work, to remove and once it was selected and that they work with both british assets and russian assets to try to make

happen. Do you do all of you watching this believe that that is now fact that there was something that looked very much like. I don't know what the legal word would be. I I think it's not technically treason, because you have to be a war to activate treason, but a conspiracy, yeah, so yeah what little the people who are saying. Yes, a conspiracy yeah, I think treason is a technical words. The requires you to be in a state of war. And that that reason would have to be on behalf of the enemy they are at war with, so to the extent that they did not, let's say collude with N Korea or ISIS or something it's not treason, technically uh yeah. Now I would here's the fascinating.

Most of you are consumers of news from the right, probably I'm guessing that the majority of you watching this periscope or Fox NEWS, Breitbart type consumers and less and MSNBC consumers, but I'll bet if you asked the people who all believe that Trump was in on this collusion thing with Russia, about. If you ask them right now, That would be almost Know where this thing that you all consider to be true. I don't know that's true, but I'll if you just stopped a tip all will say Hillary voter and said: what do you think about the fact that we don't know? I don't know if we know this, but the the proposition is

Brendan Clavering call me we're all in on it, and it was a conspiracy to try to you know, overthrow the governments through through these weasel means. If you said to the typical Clinton voter that that's now, let's say that these are facts in the public domain. What would they say? I mean that's a real question. What would they say because I don't know if I I've encountered anybody who is sort of in that bubble and presented them with that argument said. Ok, you know that this is now demonstrated fact right that these guys were all in on the thing and it's pretty obviously made up the duck. The DOW saying that you know the were some shenanigans to try to initiate a legal. There were some, some weasel methods to initiate a legal process which could have kicked up some crimes because it's easy to make anybody look like a criminal

yeah. I don't think that they've even heard the story of you it I've as much as I've sampled, I sample CNN more than MSNBC, but as much as I've sampled have you ever seen this story on CNN yeah. It's a it's a whole different world right. I don't think they know the story. Clapper said that they did it to protect trump from Russia. Uh. Yeah, so I'd love to see that happen. I'd love to see a! I want to see the interview on the street, in which somebody puts the microphone in front of the Hillary supporters.

So what do you? What do you make of the news that you know clapper in Bradenton call me were all in on this thing? Why would they say what they say? Who I think they say that one when they say who I don't think they know anything about the story? Yes, some. You're saying that even we can't so that's true. So part of the problem is that if you asked me to explain it in enough detail, Somebody really wanted to understand it and all this detail, I don't know We can do it because, because of the legal stuff there all these gaps, in my knowledge, where all right and then somebody did something because this would spark somebody to do something else in the legal domain and I'm thinking well, maybe I don't know is that the way it works, so I'm not not entirely sure

that I could explain it all well, I'm. I am entirely sure that I can't explain it all. Let's put it that way,. Yeah. It's kind of amazing that both of Brandon and clapper are being paid time that works. It is hard to believe that they're still being paid, but I guess it would be embarrassing to you know. Actually that's interesting if, if either of those two just stopped appearing, people would ask why hey you, why did you stop paying those two guys was our story.

Anything. We need to know all right. Yeah I read Andrew Mccarthy is, and he does a great job of explaining. It is just that, if you're, not a lawyer and you're not immersed in the details, it would be hard to read it and then reproduce it for anybody else in a meaningful way now list, let's be fair here, okay, so let's let me be at least attempt to be unbiased. So what I've said about bread? Perrin and looks to you, like I don't know behavior that is unambiguously a conspiracy. I will tell you that, based on what I've seen it does look exactly like a conspiracy, but do you know what else looks exactly like a conspiracy, a bunch of coincidences?

and some confirmation bias and a few things taken out of context subpatterns. I imagine some shenanigans for people who are on my side. You know convincing Maine, so It is true that the pattern looks very clear to us. Is it therefore also true that it's true um can tell you really can't tell? I would say this point. You know it in a world where you can see the people, you don't agree with believing things that are ridiculous. If you believe that that only applies to other people, then you don't understand how any of this works. These are. Universal truths were were all susceptible to exactly the same. Your mental pitfalls,

as a matter of informed, you are doesn't matter how smart you are doesn't matter. How much you know about persuasion, you you can be suckered in just as easily can you will meet hide the mic cable. Under my shirt. You know the only reason I don't is because of length. 'cause, I'm connected way over there to my Ipad, And if it's under my shirt, I can't move as far so there's a reason for all right. That's all I got to say for today, and I am and here for now and I'll talk to you later.