Scott Adams Thread (Garfield Cartoonist)

[freebeard]

I decided to listen to Episode #2527. Twelve minutes in and he claims to have cured more people than Jesus.

[expletive deleted]

I do think a hypnotist could render me blind to tinnitus, but I couldn't trust them to not tell me to cluck like a chicken then point and laugh.

[redpoint5]

...and now I've found whatifalthist's other channel and have a ton of stuff to listen to. This discussion is very interesting and confirms some of my prior assertions with regards to the trajectory of population, and what type of societies will survive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlhl1ZyZN10

[redpoint5]

There's a new episode of whatifalthist and I'm surprised to find someone out there who shares my unusual appreciation for both Darwinism and Christianity.

He goes on to point out that the current religion winning the day is Marxism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsYm8lbNx0I

[freebeard]

Episode 2530, ten minutes in. He's on about the fall of the Roman Empire as a regression to the mean. And the role of coincidence.

If he thinks too deeply about coincidence he'll be down the same rabbit hole as Robert Anton Wilson [RIP].

https://www.goodreads.com › book › show › 62584.Coincidance
Coincidance: A Head Test by Robert Anton Wilson | Goodreads
Dance a mad dervish whirl of coincidence and synchronicity with Robert Anton Wilson and his dancing partners James Joyce, the Marquis de Sade, William S. Borroughs, Carl Jung, Timothy Leary, Bobbie Kennedy, Marilyn Monroe and a host of others. Coincidance is one of Wilson's personal favorites.

[freebeard]

Whatifalthist again:

Are we a New Weimar?

He covers the Frankfurt School at 21:14. A text wall at 22:24 calls out the French Postmodernists as Step 2. I was exposed to them in 1962 at the University of Oregon, and I blame them for everything.

[freebeard]

He's back today. Yesterday was the sickest he'd been in 25 years.

[redpoint5]

The interesting part to me (at least the only thing I remember) was the explanation of how hypnosis only works on people who aren't already decided. The example Scott gave was that a hypnotist couldn't get Tucker to kill Donald with persuasion, because they are friendly. A youth who is impressionable and has less established philosophy and behavior is more likely to fall prey to "so-and-so" is Hitler.

I'm just impressed that this form of "hate speech" has been tolerated by those who champion the 1st Amendment. The juice is worth the squeeze.

[freebeard]

'Hate speech' = hypnosis? I'm not sure I get it.

If you listen to Hitler's speeches in English in his own speaking voice, you realize he was just like President Trump. Opposing the German deep state and making Germany great again (MGGA). Backstabbed by his generals and losers don't write the history books.

Here's a hour from S2 Underground:

Below the Tearline: Trump Shooting Hotwash

First thing you do is check whether the E6-Bs have turned off their transponders.

edit:
An interesting question is who's got the nuclear football?

https://www.nytimes.com › 2021 › 01 › 19 › us › politics › biden-trump-inauguration-nuclear-launch-codes.html
Who's Got the Nuclear Football? Actually, the Question Is When Biden ...
Jan 19, 2021 The handoff of power from President Trump to President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. on Wednesday involves choreography that includes two nuclear footballs and two sets of launch codes.

[redpoint5]

The main point from Scott's talk today was the one he often brings up; systems vs goals. He gave examples of politics applying policy based on goals, at the expense of functional systems. It's really a reframing of what I've always said, that treating symptoms of a problem rather than the underlying disease will always result in suboptimal outcomes. Even that is just a way to say that First Principle thinking is a better way to problem solve than last principle thinking.

Scott's other big point today was that people are more concerned about things that they are more frequently told to be concerned about, regardless of the actual level and probability of threat.

His example was Mark Cubin (don't know who that is) saying that if global warming is only a 1% existential risk, it still requires all of our resources being leveraged to reduce that risk, because the 1% risk of losing everything is worth protecting it. The flaw is that there are hundreds of (1%) existential risks, and we can't focus everything on each one of those risks, and we don't know which ones are more risky. A meteorite causing extinction is an existential threat, and it's been proven to have happened before, so why not put all effort toward mitigating that risk?

This all goes back to my point that global warming is a risk among an infinite set; one which doesn't make my top 20 list.

[freebeard]

Scott's other big point today was that people are more concerned about things that they are more frequently told to be concerned about, regardless of the actual level and probability of threat.

Sorta like when aerohead watches PBS?

edit: Listening now -- music as medicine: Bobby McFerrin - Don't Worry Be Happy