I Asked Scott Adams If I Was The Winner

[WingDings]

Here was his response.

[LBDamned]

It would be more impressive if you told me that was ASR, or ballgag, or BM...

[IronsightsRifleman]

Why am I apprehensive that this is the moment when Dogbert comes in and tells us what we've won.

[LBDamned]

Why am I apprehensive that this is the moment when Dogbert comes in and tells us what we've won.

It's probably on the cutting-room floor of the chopped vid.

[sd_shooter]

It would be more impressive if you told me that was ASR, or ballgag, or BM...

They're busy whipping up support for the next Leftist/Statist scheme

[coq]

It's probably on the cutting-room floor of the chopped vid.

Yes, it is. He implies un-vaxxed are not smart and simply lucky the data went their way this time, and while he is concerned about what the shots might do to him, he has no regrets, blah, blah, blah.

[twinfin]

...He implies un-vaxxed are not smart and simply lucky the data went their way this time...

My take on his comments are different. He described twice, the unvaxed as having a distrust of government et al. and also having an heuristic approach to the issue rather than a purely analytical one.

I agree with him on this in that a purely analytical approach did not allow for the acceptance of that inescapable amount of grey area that is neither black, nor white as we wish it to be. If only decision making could be so easy!

It is good sometimes, to sit back and try to see the larger picture and not discount ones own instincts and gut sense in making decisions. The view from 10,000 feet can sometimes reveal important clues not visible when looking at that which is within arms reach.

In other words, just as important as it was to listen to what scientists were saying was to also discern which scientists to listen to and which not to. Vital to that was weighing politics, agendas (both hidden and open), motivation, propaganda, the silencing of dissent and pervasive subterfuge.

If the last two years having taught us anything, it is that we need to be much more careful about who we decide to trust.

[LBDamned]

^^^ intuition is critical too... doesn't take any amount of intelligence - but you'd have to be pretty naive to ignore it.

basic analytically ability should have had most questioning all things covid... but we are living in an age of lazy and no accountability... many people (regardless of intelligence) rely on someone else to tell them what to do. Of course they are often the first to point fingers and place blame as well.

And here we are.

[FatCity67]

He can take his Catbert and shove it up his Dilbert.

[Elgatodeacero]

It was not luck or intuition that caused people to avoid the C19 injections, and it is ridiculous to suggest it was luck that led anti-injection people to their conclusions.

We referenced past studies on mRNA injections (where all animal test subjects died), we noted the war against any and all alternative treatments, we saw the irrational push for wearing cloth masks, we saw “natural immunity” bad mouthed, we saw extreme censorship, the hiding of clinical data, numerous efforts to “force” the injections on people, immunity from liability for injection makers, absurd propaganda that only a child could believe, and many other clear indications of bad intent by corporations and government.

It was not luck, but rather focused investigation and analysis, that caused people to avoid all C19 injections.

Scott Adams cannot accept that he ignored and mocked all the indications and information indicating C19 injections were very likely extremely dangerous and ineffective.

[Ivanhoe]

Great summation there Elgato...Precisely why myself and most of my immediate family did not get the jab.

[GimpsUnlimited]

He is right on some issue and deathly wrong on others, exhabit A. What is telling is not that he is wrong. It is his inability to own it without trying to deflect it. Just like the well known "trust the science/data" experts here.

[coq]

My take on his comments are different. He described twice, the unvaxed as having a distrust of government et al. and also having an heuristic approach to the issue rather than a purely analytical one.

I agree with him on this in that a purely analytical approach did not allow for the acceptance of that inescapable amount of grey area that is neither black, nor white as we wish it to be. If only decision making could be so easy!

It is good sometimes, to sit back and try to see the larger picture and not discount ones own instincts and gut sense in making decisions. The view from 10,000 feet can sometimes reveal important clues not visible when looking at that which is within arms reach.

In other words, just as important as it was to listen to what scientists were saying was to also discern which scientists to listen to and which not to. Vital to that was weighing politics, agendas (both hidden and open), motivation, propaganda, the silencing of dissent and pervasive subterfuge.

If the last two years having taught us anything, it is that we need to be much more careful about who we decide to trust.

That guy's full video is pathetic. Anyone trying now to say "well, it was difficult to know who to trust," or "analytics told us the shot was good" or "you had to listen to the science"...whatever...sorry, but IMO those people applied nearly zero of their own critical thought. So if they come off looking stooopid, well...

[Elgatodeacero]

I can still remember when the corporate media was trying to convince everyone C19 came from a bad bowl of bat soup!

[Tango_Down]

He'll be dead in a year from a heart attack. Totally unrelated to the vax like all of the other heart related injuries.