Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1224 Scott Adams： I Teach You When to Disagree With the Experts Because That is an Essential Skill

00:00:00.420 You're right on time. Well, at least some of you are. The rest of you, I call you laggards.

00:00:06.800 Laggards, yeah. It's time to up your game and be here exactly at 7 a.m. California time,

00:00:13.880 10 a.m. Eastern Time for the best part of your day. It's called Coffee with Scott Adams

00:00:20.080 and a Simultaneous Sip. It's amazing. Have you experienced it yet? Well, if it's your first day,

00:00:26.960 hold on to your hat. It's that good. Oh, it might sneak up on you, but it's that good.

00:00:34.260 And all you need to enjoy it is a copper mugger, a glass tanker, a chalice or stein,

00:00:40.440 a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like coffee.

00:00:47.680 And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day,

00:00:50.640 the thing that makes everything better, including the Moderna vaccine. Go. 0.83

00:00:56.960 Well, speaking of the Moderna vaccine, I guess that got approved, so we got a second vaccine.

00:01:07.580 And the interesting thing is,

00:01:09.840 how do you decide which one to take? Because I'm starting to hear reports of, you know,

00:01:16.960 the Moderna one might have some advantages over the other one. What would you do if your health

00:01:23.100 care provider offered you, let's say, the other one, but you wanted the Moderna one? What would

00:01:30.220 you do? Would you wait? If the only one you could get is the other one, because maybe you're in a,

00:01:36.460 your HMO or something just has one of them? I don't know. It's going to be a, it's going to be an

00:01:41.540 interesting question. My advice to all of you will be the same. This is what I'm going to do.

00:01:47.740 In terms of my decision of what vaccination to take or not, I'm going to wait till the last

00:01:54.780 minute. And you should too. You don't need to make a decision until somebody says you can come in and

00:02:01.320 get it. Until somebody says that you personally can go get a vaccination, don't decide. Don't decide

00:02:10.740 because there might be extra information by then. So if you decide now, before you have to,

00:02:16.120 why would you do that? Wait until the last minute. You can be quite sure you're going to

00:02:20.800 take it or quite sure you're not, but don't decide yet. Wait until the last minute. That's the smartest

00:02:27.360 place, place to make the decision. Here's the most controversial story that I have completely

00:02:34.280 changed my opinion on. You saw the story about the ethicist who, I guess the New York Times had his

00:02:42.800 article. And the ethicist claimed that it might be better for society if before older people get to

00:02:51.660 the vaccination, that the frontline health care workers get taken care of. And part of his argument,

00:02:59.360 which made the headlines, was that he thought that old people shouldn't get the vaccination first

00:03:06.120 because they're mostly white. And that frontline health care workers are more diverse. And so if

00:03:14.020 you favored the frontline workers, you would get a more diverse and more fair distribution.

00:03:20.580 And the way that was reported is, uh, racist. Oh, it's kind of racist. Really, really racist.

00:03:28.280 Is it? Yes. So let me agree with the first part of the criticism unambiguously. It's totally racist.

00:03:39.160 It's unambiguously, overtly, plainly, transparently racist. But here's the part you're not going to like.

00:03:51.440 You ready? But no matter what you do, it's racist. Sorry. Sorry. No matter what you do,

00:04:04.160 it's racist. There isn't the non-racist option. If we had a non-racist option, I would say, my God,

00:04:14.000 why are we even obtaining this idea from this clearly racist proposal? But that's not our

00:04:22.020 situation. It's not. And we can't get to a situation where there would be any kind of a

00:04:27.760 non-racist, you know, non-racist process. Here's why. No matter what rules you pick,

00:04:37.780 no matter what group you say, even if you don't use race, if you just say, well, we'll do people

00:04:46.000 over a certain age, well, mostly white, right? It wasn't your intention, but it would just turn 0.88

00:04:52.240 out that way. So things are racist by outcome, no matter what your intention was, right? So would you

00:05:01.540 agree with the first point that the outcome has a racial element to it, even if nobody was thinking

00:05:09.380 in those terms, even if racism was nothing to do with the decision, you'd all agree that there's

00:05:16.340 always an outcome that favors one group or not, no matter what you do. You can't avoid that. So let's

00:05:22.900 talk about intention. Because if the outcome is going to be racist, no matter what, you can't get rid of

00:05:28.420 the racism part. So why would you worry about the thing you can't change, right? That just can't be

00:05:33.760 changed. But you can question motive. That's always fair. You can question intention. If I thought that

00:05:42.980 someone had suggested in public that white people should not get the vaccination, you know, in an early

00:05:53.120 way, even if they're old, you know, what's your first impression of that? Sounds pretty bad, right? But let me ask you

00:06:01.780 this. So suppose somebody came to me, all right? Let's personalize this, take it down to the realm of public

00:06:09.500 policy. Take it down to you personally. Somebody comes to you and they say, Scott, you're over 60. You know, I'm 63.

00:06:19.500 And I'm in a, you know, I've got a little asthma. So I've got some comorbidities. I'm not old, old,

00:06:28.380 but I'm, you know, the beginning of the older category. And suppose they said to me, I'd like you

00:06:34.960 to make the decision, Scott. It's up to you. We know that, let's say, older black people have much 0.95

00:06:42.840 worse outcomes. Would you mind socially distancing a little bit longer? And we're going to focus on

00:06:51.080 black citizens, not because they're black, but because we know they have worse outcomes.

00:06:58.020 So if you're looking at the greater good, you want to give the vaccination to whoever gets the best

00:07:02.960 outcome, right? It just happens that they're black. That's not anybody's choice. It's nobody's intention.

00:07:10.120 It's just a biological reality. So if somebody said to me, Scott, would you personally,

00:07:18.580 you're not making a decision for anybody else, right? It's just you personally. It's not a public

00:07:23.880 policy. It doesn't apply to anybody else. It's just you. Would you personally socially distance a

00:07:30.520 little bit longer and take a little more risk for the benefit of black citizens in the United States 0.98

00:07:36.100 who are at greater risk? What would I say? I'd say yes. I'd say yes. If somebody asked me that

00:07:44.200 question directly and said, look, it's up to you. We're not, there's no penalty. You will not be

00:07:50.000 punished. You won't be punished. It's just up to you. It's your own conscience, your own risk, your own

00:07:56.960 risk reward calculation. You can be selfish if you want. It's up to you. If you want to get it first,

00:08:03.380 we'll put you right in front of the line and nobody will ever give you a hard time for it.

00:08:07.280 It's up to you. I think I'd still wait. I think it's still wait because that's actually a pretty

00:08:13.800 fair proposition. If they can identify people for whatever reason, be they black or have a

00:08:21.880 comorbidity or be they a certain age or be they healthcare workers on the front line, if you can

00:08:27.660 make a strong case that this person is in a high risk group and I'm in a slightly less high risk

00:08:34.920 group. Yeah, I'm okay with that. Absolutely. Because, you know, it's a war, right? It's a war.

00:08:43.600 And sometimes you've got to be the one that does the dangerous stuff so that somebody else doesn't

00:08:48.860 have to do it. Sometimes you've got to, you know, brave the bullets to pull back your wounded

00:08:53.940 comrade off the field, right? So we're in a situation where personal sacrifice should be a

00:09:00.160 pretty big part of the equation. If you're not thinking of it that way, then you're not in a,

00:09:05.660 let's say, a military mindset. And maybe we should be. We're in a war against a virus. Maybe let's

00:09:12.860 act more like soldiers, right? So somebody says white guilt. Am I suffering from white guilt?

00:09:21.480 Because I would say the same thing, no matter who the risk category was. So would you, would you

00:09:30.540 criticize me if I said, I think people over 80 should get the, should get the vaccination before 0.51

00:09:37.640 me? Would you criticize me for that? If I said that frontline healthcare workers should get it before

00:09:43.700 me, would you, would you criticize me for that? If I said that people who, what's the worst comorbidity,

00:09:50.740 maybe it's diabetes, let's say diabetes is, I don't know if that's true, but let's say it's the

00:09:54.780 worst one. If I said that everybody with diabetes should get the shot before I do, would you criticize

00:10:02.480 me for that? Why would you criticize me if I say, no, there's an obvious category, black citizens in

00:10:09.680 this country clearly have far worse outcomes. Why is that different than diabetes? Why is that different

00:10:15.420 than being 80 years old? All right. So there's your provocative thought of the day. I didn't think

00:10:22.680 you'd like it, but I feel it's worth mulling on. And I would say that the story about the ethicist and

00:10:30.000 his opinion was presented a little bit out of context. So when I first heard it, it just sounded

00:10:36.220 straight up racist. And that was my first impression. But when you hear the actual argument,

00:10:40.680 and you understand that there is no non-racist outcome, you can't get there. It's not a

00:10:46.040 possibility. It's only who gets, who gets the advantage. And if you decide that it's going to

00:10:51.660 be a little racist, but you're going to do it based on the greatest risk, that's about as good as you can

00:10:58.140 do. It's about as good as you can do. Now, if you told me that every black person would get the 1.00

00:11:03.720 vaccination before every white person, that doesn't make sense. But if you're talking equal to equal,

00:11:09.300 let's say a black guy who's 63 years old and has a little asthma, I would, I would put him in front 1.00

00:11:16.580 of me in line because it's a war. If this were a competition and I were competing against my fellow

00:11:25.020 citizen, yeah, I'd push him off the cliff, right? If I treated this as a competition, I'm going to get 1.00

00:11:32.400 mine and I'm going to make sure you don't get mine before I get mine. But it's not, it's a war.

00:11:37.960 So if I were competing against black people, sure, I'll do what I have to do to compete. But they're 1.00

00:11:44.100 on the same team. So I'm going to treat it like a military operation. All right. There's a new site

00:11:53.340 that's sorting the news in a useful way. I think a lot of testing on how to get our news better,

00:11:59.260 you know, better platforms or better ways to present the news so it's less biased would be good

00:12:05.060 for testing. So I'm not going to say that this particular one and its URL is tidyreport.com.

00:12:13.200 Tidy, T-I-D-Y, report.com. What they do is they organize the tweets, which of course usually connect

00:12:21.320 to the news directly. So they organize the, I think it's mostly the political tweets, by positive,

00:12:27.940 neutral, and negative. So in other words, whether the tweet is saying something positive or negative

00:12:32.480 about the topic or neutral, and whether the person saying it is associated with the left or the

00:12:38.860 right. I'm not sure exactly how they figure that out, but they're probably close. So it's called

00:12:44.220 tidyreport.com. I neither recommend it nor disrecommend it. The important part of the story

00:12:50.700 is that people are starting to A-B test different ways to present the news to get past this immense

00:12:57.460 bias situation. So check it out. Maybe that's one of the ones. Pompeo. So Mike Pompeo says that

00:13:08.620 we're, that the Russians are, quote, pretty clearly behind the cyber attack. What does pretty clearly 0.58

00:13:16.800 mean? Does pretty clearly mean we're sure of it? Is that the same? It's pretty clearly. I don't know if

00:13:26.280 that means they're positive. It's an interesting choice of words, but it's somewhere in that

00:13:31.660 neighborhood of high confidence or high likelihood. And some experts are saying what I think is

00:13:39.800 unfortunately obvious, that the only way you would be able to get rid of whatever access Russia has had

00:13:46.540 for apparently a long time, the only way you'd be able to get rid of it is to replace all of your

00:13:51.020 software. All of it. Because the, the app, the, uh, the allegation, which is probably pretty reasonable

00:13:59.220 is that once they had God access to all of the systems, they could embed, you know, viruses in

00:14:05.700 different places to be activated under different situations or open up different doors, et cetera.

00:14:11.140 So it wouldn't matter how, uh, how good you were at finding a problem because they would just

00:14:18.060 open up a new door as quickly as you found it. So you pretty much have to get rid of all of it.

00:14:25.060 I wonder if we have the technology to do that. Let me give you, uh, let me flush this out a little

00:14:33.300 bit, flush it out or flash it out a little bit. I always get those confused. Flash it out, you flash

00:14:39.260 it out, right? That's, that's the saying. So the idea is this, could you write a, uh, software

00:14:46.260 application that's main purpose is to remove all of the software in the company and replace it with

00:14:54.700 the clean version of the same software? So in other words, could you write, um, some kind of a master

00:15:01.580 God program that would take every piece of software at IBM, delete it. And I don't know how hard you have

00:15:09.600 to delete it. Maybe there's like, you have to extra delete, bleach it or something. Just get rid of all

00:15:15.200 of it and reload the same fresh, you know, thing. So you keep your databases. So none of your data would

00:15:23.600 be directly affected. So I don't think there's a problem with data. I guess I'm not that technical

00:15:29.920 that I can answer that question. Would we have any issue with a, just a raw database? I don't know if

00:15:34.700 that can hold a virus, but if you get every, get rid of everything, just wipe everything that has any

00:15:41.440 software element to it in your system. Could you write one giant program that just rolled through

00:15:48.720 a fortune 500 company, took it down for an hour, it is just done for an hour, but an hour later is

00:15:56.640 reloaded all of its software, rebooted in the right order and brought everything back up. Could you do it?

00:16:02.120 Is it, is that a thing? Let me give you a little bit of history. Do you remember when the year 2000

00:16:09.480 bug was coming? When the year 2000 bug was coming, all the experts, experts said, we don't have enough

00:16:18.920 time. We're in real trouble because the companies are not taking it seriously. And that date is coming

00:16:26.160 when year 2000 bug will hit and all computers that were, you know, designed before a certain date

00:16:31.620 can't handle the year 2000 as a date and they'll all crash and the world will, will end. And as that

00:16:38.960 was approaching and we were getting close, we were actually in the year 2000 and we're getting, you

00:16:43.480 know, or no, we're getting close to the year 2000. Yeah. It gets closer and closer and closer.

00:16:49.360 I was saying in public, we're fine. We'll be fine. Now, here's the reason that all the experts said,

00:16:56.640 no, it can't be done. It's too much work. You know, if everybody worked on it full time,

00:17:00.800 you just couldn't get it done. We're, we're doomed. And I said exactly the opposite. I said,

00:17:05.320 no, we'll be fine. What happened? What happened is we were fine. Now, why is that? Well, exactly what

00:17:13.620 I predicted that it would take a long time to do it manually, but it wouldn't take a long time to

00:17:20.080 figure out how not to do it manually. In other words, it wouldn't take that long to write programs

00:17:26.340 that would do what the humans would have to do. That would take a long time. And what happened?

00:17:31.320 People wrote programs that looked for these bugs and corrected them. And then they ran the programs.

00:17:37.800 The bugs were corrected. The year 2000 came. Bam, we're fine. So until you could imagine that it was

00:17:46.940 possible to write software that would fix, you know, universally go out there and find and fix all

00:17:52.680 the bugs that you didn't even know where they were, uh, you thought you were doomed. I think we might

00:17:58.540 find a similar, maybe an industry could be a whole industry pops up, maybe a consulting industry with

00:18:05.760 some kind of technical background. And I would guess that we will probably birth an industry

00:18:12.560 because of this, because of the hacks, uh, that go in and shut down your whole network and wipe it

00:18:19.400 and then reload it. And, you know, they control the process. So nothing gets out of control

00:18:23.700 and, and they just go rescue one company at a time. I feel like that's going to be an industry

00:18:29.900 really soon and should be. And I think that'll be the only answer because the, uh, we should assume

00:18:36.940 that, uh, people will get so far into our systems again, that we'll just be right back in this

00:18:43.600 situation. Right? So even if we found every bug and got rid of it, it would just reproduce. I mean,

00:18:50.660 you know, even if we got them all, which is impossible probably, but even if we did,

00:18:55.540 they would just hack back in and, you know, we, you know, they'd find another way in. So you need

00:19:00.260 some way to wipe all of your software every now and then, every bit of it. And that, I think that'll

00:19:05.860 become an industry. Um, here's the funniest thing that's happened, uh, lately. If you don't follow

00:19:13.940 this Twitter account, you really should. It's a parody account. Uh, and the name on the account is,

00:19:21.240 uh, Titania McGrath. And there's a little photo of a, uh, youngish blonde woman with sort of glasses

00:19:29.680 like mine. And what's brilliant about it, besides the fact that it's brilliantly written,

00:19:35.860 is that it's a parody account that is so close to reality, people are often fooled, which is part of

00:19:43.680 the joke. So a lot of people who see this account for the first time really can't tell. And, and

00:19:50.900 something happened that, uh, a thread that, uh, Titania or whoever runs the account tweeted

00:19:59.640 that just as amazing. And here's why I've been telling you for a while that parody and reality

00:20:06.900 have merged such that there's not really that much difference between a wild parody and what

00:20:14.000 you're actually observing. You want to see an example of that? Titania in her thread gives you

00:20:21.520 several examples of predictions that she, or whoever runs the account made that were pure parody

00:20:29.240 that have already happened. In other words, the parody came before the reality, but listen to this

00:20:36.660 list. It's fricking mind blowing. All right. You ready? So these are the claims in Titania's thread.

00:20:42.640 Um, she said, um, she said on, uh, December, 2018, I called for biological sex to be removed from birth 0.92

00:20:51.180 certificates. Now that was parody. We're going to take your biological sex off of your, uh, birth 1.00

00:20:58.260 certificate. So that in 2018, in 2020, the new England journal of medicine concurred. So the new

00:21:06.000 England journal of medicine is now recommending in 2020, what Titania said as purely a joke

00:21:12.840 in 2018, purely a joke. Is that the only one? Well, I mean, if this had only happened once,

00:21:20.200 if it only happened once, you'd say, oh, that's a funny coincidence, right? If it only happened once.

00:21:27.420 So, uh, on, and also in 2018, Titania criticized Julie Andrews, who played Mary Poppins in the movie

00:21:34.900 for having chimney soot on her face. Cause you know, that was in the middle of the blackface 1.00

00:21:41.280 stuff. So as purely a joke, she tweeted that and criticized Julie Andrews for having chimney

00:21:49.380 smoke on her face in the movie. That was in 2018. In 2019, the New York times concurred.

00:21:56.380 So the New York times basically took on Julie Andrews for having soot on her face and blackface. 1.00

00:22:04.560 It was literally a joke two years before it became real. Is that the only ones? Oh no,

00:22:11.340 I'm not even close to being done. So the thing that's funny is not the individual examples because

00:22:17.000 they're, they're sort of trivial. What's funny is how often it happened. It's the often part that

00:22:22.420 makes the, makes the joke. All right, here's another one. Uh, March 2019, Titania published a book

00:22:28.820 called Woke in which I argued that skyscrapers are oppressive phallic symbols. In July, 2020,

00:22:38.440 the guardian concurred. So in 2019, literally joking, the skyscrapers are, you know, some oppressive

00:22:49.740 phallic symbols. And then the guardian writes a serious article one year later saying exactly that.

00:22:57.580 Uh, in that same book in 2019, here's, here's the, like the finisher. Uh, she goes, in 2019,

00:23:04.560 in her book, also the same book, Woke, I called for, uh, I called that with Helen Keller for her white 0.98

00:23:10.760 privilege. Time magazine just did that in reality.

00:23:19.740 Now this is just a sample. The, the actual thread is longer. I just picked out some of the fun ones,

00:23:26.160 but when you see how many times parody and reality overlapped, it's, it changes you. I mean, this is,

00:23:34.440 this is one of those things where, you know, I've, I've predicted this. I predicted it often and in

00:23:41.640 public that parody and reality were on the way to merging and then to watch it in real time,

00:23:47.800 it actually merged. Did that sound like a real prediction when I said it? The first time you

00:23:53.800 heard me say parody and reality are merging, that didn't sound exactly technically real, right?

00:24:01.800 It sounded more like a humorous hyperbole. No, I meant it and it happened.

00:24:10.500 So there you go. All right. Speaking of predictions, one of my other predictions is that

00:24:18.040 history would get complicated because we would no longer have one of them. We would have more than

00:24:24.060 one history. And that if you went to school, it might be a problem because you're trying to learn

00:24:29.760 history and there are two of them and they're different. Which one do you believe? Did you think

00:24:36.980 that that was going to happen? My prediction that there would be two histories? Well, here we are.

00:24:43.620 President Trump, he unveiled his choices for the president's advisory 1776 commission.

00:24:52.180 So this will be a commission to make recommendations about how to push against the 1619 project that is

00:25:00.220 already in schools. So the president has literally created a commission to create an alternate history

00:25:08.060 to compete with the history that's already being taught in the schools. Two histories.

00:25:16.020 Literally being taught in schools. Now, when I said to you, we've got a problem here because we have

00:25:23.080 two histories like we've never had before. Did that sound real to you? The first time you heard that,

00:25:29.300 it's like, no, we'll still agree on one history. Nope. Literally, we're teaching two histories if this

00:25:37.800 commission goes forward. I don't know how much time they have before Biden scraps it, so I can't

00:25:43.360 imagine they get much done. But there you are, two histories. All right. The most interesting claim

00:25:53.340 about election fraud that I've seen comes from Kanekoa the Great. It's a Twitter account. So I think 0.90

00:26:03.340 maybe Kanekoa, K-A-N-E-K-O-A, the Great. All one word. Kanekoa the Great. A good follow. He's got lots

00:26:13.000 of stuff. I don't know who he is, but he's got lots of good content. So he made a Twitter thread,

00:26:17.540 which I'll talk about. But before I talk about it, do you remember the golden rule of all election

00:26:25.460 fraud claims? The golden rule, well, it's not golden, but it's a rule. 95% of all the election

00:26:33.760 claims you hear are fake or not real or mistaken or out of context or something. But I also believe

00:26:42.660 there's a 100% chance the election was stolen because it was easy and people had the motive

00:26:47.060 to do it. So of course it's stolen. It's always stolen under those conditions. But any specific

00:26:53.260 claim you hear, probably BS. Now, I'm going to give you a specific claim after telling you that

00:27:00.320 every specific claim is probably BS. I'm going to apply the same standard to this one. Now, this one

00:27:09.000 sounds really good. Okay? So I'm going to give you an argument here that on paper, you know, on paper,

00:27:18.700 it's really, really strong. But is it true? I don't know. I would just apply my standard to it. 95%

00:27:27.740 chance it's not. But here it is. So there is a working professional statistician, somebody who is

00:27:35.200 very capable and experienced and in the sweet spot of his career. So somebody who really, really,

00:27:42.480 really understands statistics. So this is the source. And there's a video from the statistician

00:27:49.420 explaining what he did. So the first thing you need to know is that the person making the claim

00:27:54.280 is very qualified. Right? Now, that doesn't mean it's true. Right? Because we'll talk about experts

00:28:01.460 and when you should trust them. But just know that he's very qualified. And what he did was he was just

00:28:06.520 sort of messing around with a lot of the data. You know, he explained it as almost a hobby,

00:28:11.360 something that statisticians like. It was like, oh, I wonder if there's a correlation between this

00:28:16.140 thing and that thing. And he discovered, somewhat just by poking around, a correlation that almost is

00:28:25.200 impossible to be natural. Meaning it's a signal for fraud with something like a greater than 99% chance

00:28:33.280 that it is really fraud and not some fake signal. Now, does that mean it's true? No. Remember,

00:28:41.860 we're only dealing with claims that you and I can't check. I don't have the skill to check it. I don't

00:28:48.100 know where the data was. I can't really check it. So no matter how credible this sounds, just keep this

00:28:54.880 little tape playing in the back of your head. No matter how credible it sounds, there's a 95% chance

00:29:01.360 it's not real. Okay? Just keep that playing in the back of your head. And here's what he found.

00:29:08.700 If you took the 3,000 U.S. counties, I always wondered how many counties there were, which is

00:29:13.440 weird. I was wondering that exact question. There are over 3,000 counties. Now, counties have a lot in

00:29:19.900 common, right? There could be a lot of diversity within the county, but you can make some claims

00:29:26.480 about their consistency over time. And the statistician started out by predicting who would

00:29:34.640 win each county based on a number of demographic variables. So he would say how many Democrats are in

00:29:41.240 the county? What's their age? A bunch of stuff. And he found that he could predict with 90% accuracy

00:29:48.140 who the county would go for based on their demographics. And you could apply it retrospectively

00:29:54.740 to other elections, and I guess it works. So it's about 90% good at knowing in advance who would win.

00:30:00.760 And then he looked at who actually won. And he found, eventually, he poked around and found this

00:30:08.380 strange data oddity. That there were lots of counties that did better than his model would

00:30:17.360 predict. And there were lots of counties that did worse than his model would predict. And that's

00:30:23.020 quite natural. So if you've got 3,000 data points, they're going to be spread around. But his point was

00:30:30.380 you could draw a line through the middle, and that would be his prediction. And the differences would

00:30:36.080 just be sort of equally on both sides of the line. So if there was, if he was off, it was just as

00:30:41.800 likely he was off, you know, in one way versus the other. So there'd be just as much below the line,

00:30:46.680 above the line. And then he found that in those counties that used Dominion voting systems and

00:30:54.480 one other kind, I think Hart, Hart or something? It was another company, Hart, H-A-R-T. So there,

00:31:02.100 I guess there were maybe six or so different machines in different counties and different

00:31:06.720 ways to account. But in those counties that had Dominion or Hart systems, they were consistently

00:31:13.940 over 5% more votes than would be expected for Biden. Now, here's the interesting part.

00:31:23.800 The correlation holds in Trump counties. So counties that Trump won, Biden did 5% better.

00:31:32.100 In counties that you knew that Biden was going to win because they always go Democrat, also a little

00:31:38.180 bit more than 5% better. So the amount that the Dominion and Hart machine counting counties were off

00:31:49.020 was consistent, meaning that there was a gigantic difference. Let me see if I can say this simply

00:32:00.220 because I'm botching this. If you looked at what you expected these counties to do based on their

00:32:06.580 demographics and past behavior, et cetera, the ones that had Dominion and Hart machines were way,

00:32:14.780 way, I think 73% of them had a Biden advantage that was very similar. Now, the odds of only those two

00:32:23.280 machines having 73% of the oddities went in both directions equally, but only where you have the

00:32:34.860 Dominion or Hart machines, you didn't have an even distribution. It's the only time. And it's very

00:32:40.960 consistent. And according to the statistician, not according to me, that the odds of any of that being

00:32:46.820 anything but fraud are vanishing, vanishingly small. You know, you could say it might be something else

00:32:54.780 in the, you know, extreme, you know, it was alien invasion or something, but not really, not really.

00:33:02.720 Now, this is very different from the quadrillions argument. The quadrillions argument was debunked,

00:33:08.980 right? So the quadrillions argument is that if there's, let's say, a bellwether place that always

00:33:17.380 went to Republicans and this is the only time it didn't, you know, that that's a signal. And then

00:33:23.720 there's this other signal and this other signal. That is not good analysis because all it would take

00:33:29.780 is one big effect that could affect all of those things, right? So that's not a guaranteed signal of

00:33:37.520 fraud. But this is really specific because you can trace it all the way down to this specific

00:33:44.300 vendor. And if you can trace the difference down to specific vendors, that's a really stronger case,

00:33:52.240 I think. Now, I don't know if Andreas Beckhaus is watching this video, but if you are,

00:33:59.360 that he'd be the best debunker of things that I say. So debunk me on Twitter if I've missed any,

00:34:07.260 anything obvious. So I took this and I sent the link to my Democrat friend that I always mention,

00:34:16.200 that my anti-Trump Democrat friend, who has the qualities of being very smart and well-informed

00:34:21.940 and yet appears to act crazy. He's completely rational, in fact, one of the most rational people I know,

00:34:31.360 in all other domains. He's just like this really rational guy. It practically defines who he is.

00:34:37.420 He's so rational. And I sent him this, sent him the statistical analysis. And as luck would have it,

00:34:46.240 he's also good at statistics. So one of his talent stacks is statistics. So I sent him a statistical

00:34:53.860 argument to a guy who really knows statistics. No, it's not Sam Harris. It's a personal friend,

00:35:00.320 nobody you know. And here's why I did it. My friend says, and has been saying, that there's

00:35:08.360 no evidence that there was anything fraudulent. So that's his view. No evidence. So I sent him

00:35:16.380 this evidence. But the evidence has a special quality to it. That no matter how much you know

00:35:24.260 about statistics, you can't really just look at it and know if it's right. Right? You can't tell.

00:35:31.500 So this expert is making an argument that unless you probably, unless you really dug into his work,

00:35:37.760 you can't tell if it's real. So I did this intentionally, not as here I've proven my case,

00:35:44.720 because I don't think anything like that's happened. Remember, 95% of all evidence is fake.

00:35:49.280 This is no different. So I didn't think it was a kill shot. But the reason I showed it to him

00:35:54.860 is because I knew he wouldn't know it wasn't. And he wouldn't know if it was because it can't be known.

00:36:00.680 It's just too hard to know it based on what we have available to us. And I wondered if he would

00:36:05.940 reject it. Or would he say, okay, this does not prove fraud. And I would agree with that.

00:36:12.940 But it certainly tells us we should look into it. So that's what I was looking for. I was looking

00:36:19.840 for a rational response that says, you know, Scott, I know a lot about statistics too. But I don't have

00:36:27.480 access to all the data he has. If he did this analysis right, it would be very meaningful.

00:36:32.920 And it does look like he's capable, capable of doing the analysis. If it's right, this is something

00:36:39.200 that would be important. It should be looked into. So that's what a reasonable person would say,

00:36:43.720 right? Do you think he said that? Nope. Perfectly reasonable to say it didn't prove anything. And I

00:36:52.200 agree. Here's what he said. You can find any correlation in lots of data. Now, this is what

00:36:59.920 I would call the Bible code theory. The Bible code is a debunked, it was an idea that if you looked in

00:37:09.080 the Bible, and you did various schemes to find secret messages, you would find all these messages,

00:37:16.760 such as, I'll just pick one, this is random, not a real one. If you took the second letter of the

00:37:21.480 first sentence, but you took the third letter of the next sentence, and then the fourth letter of the

00:37:26.160 next sentence. So it was all these little algorithms that would run against the Bible,

00:37:30.160 and it would spit out things that you didn't think could possibly be, you know, natural. So it'd be

00:37:37.640 like little predictions, and you'd say, yes, look, it's like a full sentence prediction, and it actually

00:37:44.360 happened. So there was a time when people thought the Bible had these secret codes. That was debunked

00:37:50.140 by some scientists who took their same algorithms and ran it against any big book.

00:37:56.160 Like war and peace. Turns out war and peace is full of secret messages and predictions that

00:38:02.020 actually came true. Because it turns out that if you've got something as complicated as a big book

00:38:07.620 filled with letters, you can find some algorithm that will produce full sentences, just by trial and

00:38:15.660 error, and they will look like predictions that happened. So it can work with any book. It's obviously not

00:38:20.800 the Bible code. So his argument was that this statistician had basically fallen for the Bible

00:38:27.340 code error. Does that sound like a good response to, here's a video by a hugely qualified statistician?

00:38:37.460 Are there any hugely qualified statisticians who don't know about the Bible code? There are none.

00:38:47.680 There are none. That's not a thing. There's no such thing as a professional, a professional

00:38:54.100 statistician who's never heard of this problem with the Bible code. That's not a thing. Obviously,

00:39:01.320 the statistician was aware that that's one of the risks that you have to guard against.

00:39:07.340 So I feel as if this is a pretty clean example of cognitive dissonance. The reasonable reaction

00:39:14.440 would have been, I can't evaluate this, but if it's right, it's meaningful. Right? Is that not the

00:39:21.680 only reasonable response to something you can't analyze but looks important and an expert did it?

00:39:27.280 All right. So the other thing my Democrat friend said as a response is that the courts have rejected

00:39:42.340 all of the evidence that was presented. It's just mind boggling. So my Democrat friend, because the news

00:39:52.160 is so fake, he believes that courts have looked at evidence of fraud. That never happened. He actually

00:39:59.960 thinks that happened. It didn't happen. Apparently, he was unaware that the cases are being thrown out for

00:40:05.420 technicalities without actually looking at the claims. You know, it's about standing and doctrine of

00:40:11.420 latches and, you know, whether or not you can bring the case and who's got, you know, who's got jurisdiction.

00:40:18.300 It's all that stuff. But as far as I know, the claims per se have not been judged in any court of

00:40:26.800 law. I don't know that the witnesses who make direct claims of observing fraud, have they had their day

00:40:34.740 in court? No, right? So here's a well-informed, really well-informed guy, but his information comes

00:40:44.660 from the left and actually thinks an alternate history of the United States is happening right

00:40:51.080 now. He believes there's an alternate history happening in parallel with the one you're experiencing

00:40:55.940 in which those claims are being debunked by courts. Nothing like that's happened.

00:41:01.040 Nothing even close to that has happened. They've never even looked at it. Beyond that,

00:41:07.760 would it make any difference that other claims were debunked?

00:41:13.980 Does it matter how many people are found innocent of a crime?

00:41:19.500 Let's say this. Let's say three people were accused of a crime and you found out they didn't do it.

00:41:24.840 Does that tell you the fourth person who was accused of an unrelated crime? Does that tell you the

00:41:30.180 fourth person who didn't do it? It doesn't really work that way, right? Anyway.

00:41:38.320 Trump signed some legislation that would kick Chinese companies off of the U.S. stock exchanges

00:41:43.940 unless those companies allow financial audits that are required for, you know, American companies that

00:41:52.120 are on those exchanges. To which I say, why did this take so long? Are you telling me that there are

00:42:00.160 Chinese companies on American exchanges who simply decide not to abide by the very, very, very

00:42:07.000 important rules of transparency that all American companies abide by or else they get penalized

00:42:12.840 greatly? Are you telling me that China can just be on our stock exchange and ignore all the rules that 0.82

00:42:19.500 require the important ones, not even the trivial ones, like the most important one is you've got to

00:42:25.680 have some transparency. That's like right at the top. That's not a detail, right? And so Trump signs this

00:42:33.480 legislation that will kick them off if they don't allow these audits. And I'm thinking, why did that take so

00:42:40.020 long? You know, and do you think this would have happened under Biden? Do you? Because I feel like

00:42:47.840 probably it wouldn't. It's going to be fun watching Trump try to get things done, you know, between now

00:42:54.600 and Inauguration Day. We'll see how much trouble he can cause. All right, let me teach you when to

00:42:59.860 disagree with the experts because, of course, we all do it. But there is a good way to do it and a bad

00:43:04.960 way to do it. And this will be your important lesson of the day. You ready? Okay. Here's what you

00:43:11.220 should not do. Do not disagree with experts and then cite as your reason for disagreeing with the

00:43:18.960 experts a fact which all the experts know. Okay, I just gave you an example that all the experts in

00:43:27.380 statistics know about the Bible code. So stating that as the reason for your argument doesn't make

00:43:34.100 any sense. Because the expert knows that. Here's some more examples of that. I've heard the argument

00:43:43.700 that CO2 can't be causing a climate crisis because CO2 used to be much higher in the past. You've heard

00:43:54.000 this argument, right? People say climate change isn't real because CO2 used to be way, way higher in the

00:43:59.480 past. And there was no civilization back then. If there were no humans, and CO2 was way higher in

00:44:06.300 the past, and things seem to be fine. So it's all hoax, right? Here's the problem with that.

00:44:14.140 Every climate scientist knows CO2 was higher in the past. Do you see where I'm going? All the experts

00:44:23.220 who say climate change is a problem. They know what you know, that CO2 was much higher in the past.

00:44:30.960 That's not a reason to argue against them. What that proves is that you don't know why they have,

00:44:37.860 you don't understand their argument basically. Now, I believe that I read once that CO2 was higher in

00:44:45.300 the distant history of the earth, but it was the same time that I believe the sun was less strong,

00:44:52.300 so there was some countering force that is easy to demonstrate and well known. So in general,

00:45:00.180 if you're disagreeing with experts, but you're using as your basis for disagreement a fact that

00:45:06.460 every one of those experts knows, you're almost certainly not making a good argument. You can be

00:45:12.240 right, because experts sometimes are wrong and you don't know why. So you can be right by accident.

00:45:17.080 But you should check yourself and say, wait a minute, my argument is based on one fact

00:45:23.440 that the other people already know. There's got to be some other argument or that's nothing.

00:45:29.360 All right, here's another example. When I predicted that Trump would win in 2016,

00:45:37.200 2016, I was going against all the experts and all the pollsters. Was that smart? Was it smart for

00:45:45.640 me to disagree with the experts when I was using their same data? Because they knew what the polls

00:45:53.520 were. We're all looking at the same data, right? So I should not have disagreed with the experts,

00:45:59.240 wouldn't you say, if all I were using was the same data they were using? Because they would know

00:46:05.120 more than I do, plus they know the same data I know. Except here's what's different. I was not

00:46:12.060 using their same data. I was using my expertise, which is different from theirs. My expertise was

00:46:19.900 persuasion. And as a trained persuader, and other trained persuaders saw at the same time I did,

00:46:26.540 they said, whoa, whoa, whoa, this isn't like the past. We've never had this skill set running for

00:46:33.520 president. And you guys don't see it coming. But I'm kind of an expert in this persuasion stuff.

00:46:38.960 And I do see it coming just like a train. Like I can see it. I can see it coming. Right? So if you

00:46:45.580 disagree with the experts, because you're bringing knowledge that they don't have, or expertise that

00:46:52.080 they don't have, that might be a reasonable disagreement. Again, doesn't mean you're right and

00:46:57.320 they're wrong. Could go either way. But at least you're being reasonable. That would be a reasonable

00:47:02.740 way to disagree with an expert, because you're bringing something new that they don't have.

00:47:09.100 But if you're only bringing the stuff they already know, I think I'd lean toward the experts, not you,

00:47:16.300 in that case. I had one other expertise in the case of calling Trump's 2016 victory, which is that

00:47:24.580 I know a lot about my white males. As a white male of a certain age, I kind of have a little more insight

00:47:33.020 into white males of a certain age. And I know what they're willing to say out loud in public. And I know

00:47:39.180 what they privately think. And it's a little bit different. So I'm not sure that all the experts had maybe

00:47:46.160 the same, you know, experience with this group of people who ended up being influential in the final

00:47:51.560 final outcome. So whenever you think you have some extra insight or expertise or data, then maybe

00:47:59.500 disagreeing with an expert makes some sense. Here's another one. I've disagreed with climate change experts

00:48:08.440 about their projections of how bad things will be in 50 to 80 years. Does that make sense? I'm not a climate

00:48:16.940 change expert, right? So if I'm disagreeing with the experts, aren't I being irrational? Because there's

00:48:24.100 no fact that I know about climate change, and this is true, there's no fact I know about climate change

00:48:30.540 that they don't know. So they know all the facts that I have, plus lots more. Would it be reasonable for

00:48:38.720 me to disagree with them when they know everything I know, plus the scientific method has backed them

00:48:46.300 up, they say, plus the majority of experts are on the same side, plus they know way more than I do?

00:48:54.160 Is that reasonable for me to disagree in that case? Well, if that's all the variables that were involved,

00:49:00.340 the answer is no. If there were no other variables, it wouldn't really be reasonable for me to disagree.

00:49:05.220 I don't have anything to add to it. But when you're predicting what's going to happen financially,

00:49:11.600 you're now in my ballpark. Because I worked as a person who made financial predictions for

00:49:18.480 big corporations, did it for years, and I have expertise in it. So when I'm criticizing climate

00:49:25.580 change, the part I don't criticize is the science part. The science part is that if you add CO2 to the

00:49:33.260 atmosphere, no matter how it gets there, human or other, no matter how it gets there, all things

00:49:39.000 be equal, would that warm up the earth? Probably. I'm not disagreeing with experts, because I don't

00:49:45.620 have any extra data. What extra data do I have? What extra science do I have? None. So when they

00:49:53.540 make a claim that CO2 should warm the atmosphere, all things be equal, I say, I don't have anything to

00:50:00.060 add to that. I'm not going to doubt it. And I'm not going to confirm it. I'm just going to say,

00:50:06.180 well, you're experts. You know, I don't know. But when you get to the second part, which is they make

00:50:11.260 a financial, not a scientific, but a financial estimate of what it's going to do with the world

00:50:18.180 economy, you're in my expertise. So if I criticize you from my expertise, and you're a scientist,

00:50:26.860 you should listen to me. Literally. If a scientist tells you to believe a financial estimate,

00:50:38.060 or a financial prediction, and a financial expert who makes these predictions, or has for a living,

00:50:45.520 says no, who are you going to believe? The person who knows the most about financial predictions,

00:50:51.420 or a scientist? Because scientists are not financial predictors. So when I disagree with

00:50:57.760 climate change, I'm not disagreeing with scientists on science. I'm disagreeing with scientists on my

00:51:04.880 expertise, not theirs, my expertise. I have another expertise too, which is, again, persuasion. And so I

00:51:12.700 have a theory of why maybe scientists could be, you know, fooled or biased or subject to confirmation

00:51:19.180 bias, at least on the financial part, financial predictions. And it is, you know, everything that

00:51:25.480 you already know, which is that there's a group think, and there would be a penalty for going against

00:51:30.080 the grain. So if you're going to disagree with the experts, at least have a theory of why they're wrong.

00:51:37.320 So sometimes I have a theory that there are just too many penalties for them to say,

00:51:43.200 you know, going against the grain, you know, so it's cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias,

00:51:47.780 or that I have extra facts or extra information. All right, here's another example of the same thing.

00:51:56.040 I see this argument all the time about wearing masks, and it goes like this. This was tweeted at me

00:52:02.600 today. The problem with this, I'm sorry, it was tweeted at me today that we know masks can't work

00:52:11.260 because the tiny holes in the mask are way bigger than the even tinier virus. Now, most of you have

00:52:21.120 probably made this argument, right? How many of you have made this argument? Scott, Scott, Scott,

00:52:26.120 the scientists have looked, they've seen that the masks have these big holes on them when you go

00:52:31.400 microscopic, and the hole is this big. The virus is the size of a pea. You know, let's say, relatively

00:52:39.620 speaking, the virus is the size of a pea. The holes, the tiny holes in the mask would be the size of,

00:52:45.800 let's say, a basketball hoop. How does a basketball hoop stop something that's the size of a pea?

00:52:54.920 Right? Have you made that argument yourself? Raise your hand if you've ever made that argument.

00:53:00.100 If you did, you would know you're disagreeing with the majority of experts who say the masks work.

00:53:07.160 Now, here's my test. Do you think that the experts who say masks don't work, who say the masks do work,

00:53:17.320 do you think they're unaware of your pea going through a basketball hoop brilliant analogy?

00:53:24.960 Because if they're aware of that fact, then you're adding nothing to it. It's a fact they know. It's a fact you know.

00:53:34.740 That the size of the holes in the masks are so big, and the virus itself is smaller.

00:53:41.400 Do you think they don't know that? The experts? I'm pretty sure all of the experts know that.

00:53:47.300 But they know everything you know, which is, let's say, that fact, and more.

00:53:53.960 So they know everything you know. They know that big hole and little virus exists.

00:54:00.020 But the other thing they know is that it's been tested in a variety of real-world situations.

00:54:06.760 And in the real world, the evidence is very strong that masks work.

00:54:13.360 So they're aware that when you test it in a laboratory, you can come up with a very good reason why maybe it wouldn't.

00:54:22.040 But it might have to do with the water droplets being bigger than the virus itself,

00:54:26.660 so maybe they don't get through the basketball hoop.

00:54:29.380 Could be that it changes the direction or the viral load.

00:54:32.860 But we don't know why. We don't know why.

00:54:36.620 But the point is, if the experts know everything you know about the size of that virus,

00:54:42.300 there's something you don't know.

00:54:45.120 And that's what you should take away from it.

00:54:46.740 You shouldn't take away from it that the experts are lying if they know more than you do.

00:54:55.180 Now, how often have I disagreed with the experts?

00:54:59.320 And let me see if I'm consistent with my own rules of knowing when to agree or disagree with experts.

00:55:06.300 When the question came up of closing travel from China,

00:55:11.120 the virology experts said in the very early days,

00:55:15.860 no, you don't need to do that.

00:55:17.920 And I disagreed with vehement, cursing public statements

00:55:24.040 that we should close the travel from China immediately.

00:55:27.120 Now, who was right?

00:55:30.660 Well, I was right.

00:55:31.820 I think history shows that I was right,

00:55:33.980 that we should have closed China travel as early as I said,

00:55:37.820 which was well before Trump did it, which I think was a week later.

00:55:42.560 And, but was I, so even though I was right,

00:55:47.180 let's examine if I was right for the right reason.

00:55:50.440 Okay, so what was it that I added to this, to the experts?

00:55:56.120 If the experts say it's not a risk, why should I say it?

00:56:01.920 You know, what do I know that the experts don't know?

00:56:05.080 And here's what I do know.

00:56:07.420 Risk management.

00:56:09.160 Are scientists experts in risk management?

00:56:12.040 Because if you studied economics and if you have an MBA

00:56:16.700 and a lot of experience in business, as I do,

00:56:19.680 I would consider myself not like a world expert in risk management,

00:56:24.000 but certainly it's my expertise.

00:56:26.360 So understanding risk and making decisions

00:56:28.840 in the context of risk management

00:56:30.700 is what you learn when you get an MBA.

00:56:33.960 It's what you learn in business.

00:56:35.580 I'm good at it.

00:56:36.360 So when I looked at this situation,

00:56:38.680 I didn't say I'm smarter than epidemiologists.

00:56:42.660 I said, I don't think they understand risk management

00:56:45.980 because the risk is catastrophic.

00:56:50.760 And here we are, right?

00:56:52.180 We knew the risk was catastrophic.

00:56:54.360 We knew that it would be expensive to close travel,

00:56:57.760 but it would be better than catastrophic.

00:57:00.700 So from a risk management perspective,

00:57:03.240 it was kind of a no-brainer

00:57:04.500 that anybody who understood my expertise,

00:57:09.240 risk management,

00:57:11.060 would have found that an easy decision.

00:57:13.200 And in fact, who was it who famously, you know,

00:57:17.380 followed on pretty quickly?

00:57:18.540 It was Trump.

00:57:19.940 Would you say that Trump is also an epidemiologist?

00:57:24.900 No.

00:57:25.820 Is he an expert on risk management?

00:57:30.000 Yes.

00:57:31.060 Yes, that's exactly what he is.

00:57:32.820 In the same way that I am.

00:57:35.200 If you're experienced with business,

00:57:37.680 you are somebody who's been making risk management decisions

00:57:40.660 for decades.

00:57:43.400 Yeah.

00:57:44.100 Trump is very, very experienced at risk management.

00:57:48.180 So if you're disagreeing with the experts

00:57:50.000 because you bring a different expertise,

00:57:52.260 that can be valid.

00:57:53.660 It doesn't mean you're right,

00:57:54.500 but it could be a valid disagreement.

00:57:55.600 When the experts were first saying that masks don't work

00:58:01.120 before they said they do,

00:58:03.520 I called that a lie on day one.

00:58:07.140 Now, did I call it a lie

00:58:08.620 because of my expertise in virology

00:58:11.660 and the physics of masks?

00:58:14.780 No.

00:58:15.900 I brought a different expertise to that.

00:58:18.560 And that different expertise

00:58:20.320 is that as the creator of Dilbert

00:58:23.300 and somebody who's worked in business for a long time,

00:58:26.120 I know how big organizations work.

00:58:29.280 And I know that big organizations

00:58:31.080 will routinely lie to managed behavior.

00:58:36.800 And it occurred to me

00:58:38.220 that since we were talking about a shortage of masks,

00:58:41.400 at the same time we were talking,

00:58:43.020 the experts were saying,

00:58:44.080 nah, you don't need a mask.

00:58:45.360 But maybe the healthcare workers do need them. 0.87

00:58:48.980 Nah, you don't need them.

00:58:49.960 Save them for the healthcare workers. 0.99

00:58:51.440 Eh, it won't make any difference.

00:58:53.100 It seemed very likely to me

00:58:55.620 that they were making the decision

00:58:57.960 to manage the shortage

00:58:59.340 and it was not an actual scientific statement.

00:59:03.200 So in this case,

00:59:04.040 my expertise in bureaucracies

00:59:06.560 and how they lie to manage resources,

00:59:09.520 I applied to this situation

00:59:11.260 and with no understanding of epidemiology

00:59:14.200 or the size of the physics of the masks,

00:59:16.860 I correctly predicted that they were lying.

00:59:20.680 And that was the truth.

00:59:23.900 How about what I said early on in the pandemic

00:59:27.520 and I was saying that we should

00:59:28.940 at least do a major test

00:59:31.400 and really, really quickly on hydroxychloroquine

00:59:33.780 because if it worked as claimed,

00:59:36.240 it would be huge.

00:59:37.480 If it didn't work,

00:59:38.840 well, it's not much risk.

00:59:40.660 It's pretty low risk compared to the pandemic.

00:59:42.680 Now, my current thinking

00:59:46.180 is that hydroxychloroquine

00:59:47.820 almost certainly,

00:59:50.300 at this point,

00:59:51.060 we could say wasn't the game changer.

00:59:53.820 I don't know if it works a little,

00:59:55.780 but it certainly isn't working so well

00:59:57.980 that everybody's adopting it.

00:59:59.800 We would know that by now,

01:00:01.020 in my opinion.

01:00:02.620 But was I right or wrong

01:00:04.260 in saying we should go hard

01:00:06.080 at hydroxychloroquine

01:00:07.460 in the environment of not knowing

01:00:10.400 whether it worked or not?

01:00:11.760 I was 100% right,

01:00:13.980 as was Trump.

01:00:15.400 Not right that it works,

01:00:17.420 but right that there's enough evidence

01:00:19.160 that it works

01:00:19.640 that we should go hard at it

01:00:21.020 and know for sure,

01:00:22.960 because we tested it rigorously,

01:00:25.440 that we should just go at it

01:00:27.720 as hard as possible.

01:00:28.740 And at least eliminate it

01:00:30.100 as a possibility.

01:00:31.940 At least eliminate it.

01:00:32.940 So, I think I was right on that as well.

01:00:37.680 All right.

01:00:40.920 So, Swalwell, it turns out

01:00:42.640 the information is that

01:00:44.300 there's some confirmation

01:00:45.340 that he did actually have

01:00:46.660 a sexual fling

01:00:48.640 with the Chinese spy,

01:00:50.800 Fang Fang. 0.78

01:00:52.720 So, here's my take.

01:00:55.020 We know that Swalwell

01:00:56.420 pushed the Russia collusion hoax

01:00:58.300 harder than anybody

01:00:59.480 except Adam Schiff.

01:01:00.400 And we know that it was a hoax

01:01:03.320 and we know that

01:01:03.940 that was very bad

01:01:04.760 for the country

01:01:05.340 and so what Swalwell did

01:01:07.160 was unambiguously

01:01:08.860 very bad for the country.

01:01:11.020 But,

01:01:11.620 it could have also been

01:01:12.720 just a mistake.

01:01:14.220 Right?

01:01:15.180 And,

01:01:16.060 I think that you have to allow

01:01:18.540 that your people

01:01:20.800 that you elect in Congress

01:01:21.880 are going to make some mistakes.

01:01:23.720 So, I don't know

01:01:24.620 that you would necessarily

01:01:25.880 fire somebody

01:01:27.400 for pushing the fine people,

01:01:30.000 I'm sorry,

01:01:30.520 for pushing the

01:01:31.300 Russia collusion hoax

01:01:33.040 because maybe he believed it.

01:01:35.280 Right?

01:01:35.680 Maybe he was just wrong.

01:01:37.020 That's not the worst thing

01:01:38.240 in the world.

01:01:38.720 And if Democrats said,

01:01:39.960 well, we like him in general

01:01:41.220 and even though he pushed this hoax

01:01:43.260 or maybe they believe the hoax,

01:01:44.480 I don't know.

01:01:45.500 So, maybe that's not enough

01:01:46.840 to lose your job.

01:01:49.260 You could argue it is,

01:01:50.820 but maybe not

01:01:52.020 for the,

01:01:52.960 at least his voters.

01:01:53.860 And then,

01:01:55.180 there's the question

01:01:55.740 of having a fling

01:01:56.820 with a Chinese spy.

01:01:57.880 Let's say he didn't know it.

01:01:59.900 That's the reporting, right?

01:02:01.460 The reporting is

01:02:02.280 he didn't know

01:02:02.740 she was a Chinese spy.

01:02:04.620 Should you lose your job

01:02:06.100 if you had a relationship

01:02:08.900 with somebody

01:02:09.600 that you didn't know

01:02:10.260 was a spy

01:02:10.820 and the moment you found out

01:02:12.880 you cut contact?

01:02:14.900 I don't think so.

01:02:16.080 I don't think you should

01:02:16.900 lose your job

01:02:17.820 for being fooled

01:02:19.700 by a spy

01:02:20.500 if,

01:02:22.360 especially if there's

01:02:23.360 no damage

01:02:23.980 that you can identify.

01:02:25.980 So, you've got

01:02:26.780 two things

01:02:27.560 that are sort of

01:02:28.300 really close

01:02:29.220 to something

01:02:30.200 you should get fired for, 0.91

01:02:32.040 but individually?

01:02:33.760 I don't know.

01:02:34.700 Now, suppose you added

01:02:35.660 them together.

01:02:36.960 He did two bad things.

01:02:38.300 He didn't do one bad thing.

01:02:39.380 He did two bad things.

01:02:40.660 Is that enough

01:02:41.400 to fire him?

01:02:42.960 Well, I don't know.

01:02:44.220 I suppose that would

01:02:45.620 be subjective.

01:02:47.080 But here's the thing.

01:02:48.200 Those two things

01:02:49.240 he did wrong

01:02:49.980 are not unrelated,

01:02:51.120 meaning that

01:02:52.900 a Chinese spy

01:02:54.460 you would expect

01:02:55.300 to want you

01:02:56.120 to put pressure

01:02:57.100 on Russia

01:02:57.780 and away from China.

01:02:59.700 Now, we don't know

01:03:00.460 if that's why

01:03:01.420 Swalwell did what he did.

01:03:03.440 We don't know

01:03:03.940 if Swalwell

01:03:04.500 was motivated,

01:03:05.740 persuaded,

01:03:06.300 or brainwashed

01:03:06.960 in any way

01:03:07.620 to push the Russia 0.97

01:03:08.980 collusion hoax.

01:03:10.180 All we know

01:03:11.120 is that we watched it.

01:03:13.240 And if these

01:03:14.040 two facts are true,

01:03:15.300 that you saw

01:03:17.120 Swalwell

01:03:18.360 going balls

01:03:19.820 to the wall

01:03:20.460 to do something

01:03:21.240 that a Chinese spy

01:03:22.360 would certainly

01:03:22.920 want him to do,

01:03:23.840 which has put all

01:03:24.480 the pressure

01:03:24.860 on Russia

01:03:26.540 and, you know,

01:03:28.520 hurt the integrity

01:03:29.960 of our elections

01:03:30.780 and question everything,

01:03:32.380 et cetera.

01:03:33.000 He did exactly

01:03:34.740 what a spy

01:03:35.900 would want him to do,

01:03:36.820 a Chinese spy.

01:03:38.280 Now, that doesn't mean

01:03:39.480 he did it

01:03:40.160 because of that.

01:03:42.080 But,

01:03:42.600 we don't know.

01:03:45.740 That's grounds

01:03:46.540 for removal.

01:03:47.860 The fact that

01:03:48.660 we don't know

01:03:49.520 if the only reason

01:03:50.980 he damaged the country

01:03:52.100 so badly

01:03:52.780 is because

01:03:53.800 he was influenced

01:03:54.800 by a Chinese spy,

01:03:56.640 it doesn't matter

01:03:57.880 if you can prove

01:03:58.960 there was a connection

01:04:00.240 between those stories.

01:04:01.780 The fact that

01:04:02.660 what he did

01:04:03.220 was so perfectly

01:04:04.180 exactly what a spy

01:04:05.520 would want him to do,

01:04:07.120 that's enough.

01:04:09.200 Even if

01:04:10.000 he's completely innocent,

01:04:11.400 you can't have

01:04:12.020 that person

01:04:12.480 in public office.

01:04:14.000 And I feel

01:04:15.120 that that could be

01:04:16.140 unfair to him.

01:04:17.660 Now, I've told you before,

01:04:18.440 I've met

01:04:19.080 Eric Swalwell

01:04:20.600 a few times

01:04:21.380 because he knows

01:04:22.260 some people I know

01:04:23.060 in local parties

01:04:26.080 and stuff,

01:04:26.700 so he's been around

01:04:27.640 a little bit.

01:04:28.840 And so,

01:04:29.360 I don't have

01:04:30.240 bad feelings

01:04:31.300 about him

01:04:31.720 as a human being,

01:04:32.860 and I don't like

01:04:33.560 people to lose

01:04:34.180 their jobs

01:04:34.740 over politics

01:04:35.660 and stuff like this.

01:04:36.680 But this is sort

01:04:37.560 of a no-brainer.

01:04:39.240 This isn't one

01:04:40.020 of those situations

01:04:40.860 where you can put

01:04:41.880 the well-being

01:04:43.620 of Eric Swalwell

01:04:44.900 over the well-being

01:04:46.040 of the credibility

01:04:47.180 of the republic.

01:04:48.420 He's just less important

01:04:49.720 than the republic.

01:04:51.260 And I think

01:04:52.660 he's got to go.

01:04:54.040 I don't think,

01:04:54.800 and by the way,

01:04:56.400 I'm positive

01:04:57.180 I would say this

01:04:57.960 if he were a republican.

01:04:59.640 I don't know

01:05:00.180 if you would,

01:05:01.440 you know,

01:05:01.840 your mileage

01:05:02.900 might vary,

01:05:03.440 but I'm positive

01:05:04.780 I would have

01:05:05.220 the same opinion

01:05:05.940 no matter his politics.

01:05:07.340 I said provocatively

01:05:14.800 that although

01:05:15.820 I oppose all violence

01:05:17.020 and I do,

01:05:18.000 that if conservatives

01:05:18.880 don't start planning now

01:05:20.460 to control the streets,

01:05:22.560 they'll never win

01:05:23.280 another election.

01:05:24.180 There's no point

01:05:24.660 in having an election

01:05:25.420 because for all

01:05:26.880 practical purposes,

01:05:28.040 whoever controls

01:05:29.160 violence in the country

01:05:31.000 runs the country.

01:05:32.940 Let me say that again

01:05:34.020 because it's one

01:05:34.580 of those things

01:05:35.020 it takes you a while

01:05:35.800 to connect the dots.

01:05:38.280 Whoever controls

01:05:39.660 violence,

01:05:42.180 meaning you can

01:05:43.240 get away with it,

01:05:44.800 is the government.

01:05:47.300 Effectively.

01:05:48.640 Right?

01:05:48.980 Even if they're not

01:05:49.720 the government in name,

01:05:51.760 whoever can control

01:05:53.100 violence

01:05:53.740 is in charge.

01:05:56.160 There's no exception

01:05:57.420 to that.

01:05:58.540 It's not like

01:05:59.360 a bias

01:06:00.520 or a

01:06:01.340 hey,

01:06:01.900 there's a correlation.

01:06:03.160 it's a definition.

01:06:07.200 Whoever controls

01:06:08.140 violence

01:06:08.780 in the country

01:06:09.540 runs the country

01:06:10.460 every time.

01:06:11.760 No exception.

01:06:13.100 Right?

01:06:13.540 And we watched

01:06:14.560 that the

01:06:15.320 Antifa

01:06:16.740 and Black Lives Matter

01:06:17.780 and Democrats,

01:06:18.940 they controlled

01:06:19.720 violence

01:06:20.340 in the streets

01:06:22.100 and there's

01:06:23.240 good reason

01:06:23.900 to believe

01:06:24.540 that that

01:06:25.840 affected

01:06:26.700 the Supreme Court

01:06:27.720 to want to

01:06:29.320 stay out of the election

01:06:30.200 because they didn't

01:06:31.220 want more violence.

01:06:32.340 So under this

01:06:33.720 situation where

01:06:34.420 violence appears

01:06:35.780 to be our

01:06:36.440 political system

01:06:37.280 now,

01:06:38.040 if you want

01:06:38.880 to not have

01:06:39.780 that be

01:06:40.240 your government,

01:06:42.100 you know,

01:06:42.320 street violence,

01:06:43.540 the only response

01:06:44.760 to that,

01:06:45.220 since the police

01:06:45.860 apparently have been

01:06:47.340 neutered,

01:06:48.060 you know,

01:06:48.300 politically neutered,

01:06:49.740 the police aren't

01:06:50.540 going to help you.

01:06:51.560 And it looks like

01:06:52.240 we're not going to

01:06:53.060 employ the army

01:06:53.900 because that would

01:06:54.600 have its own problems.

01:06:55.660 The only way

01:06:56.680 that this gets fixed

01:06:57.700 that I can think of

01:06:58.740 is that the number

01:07:00.560 of conservatives

01:07:01.440 who show up

01:07:02.400 is way more

01:07:03.280 than the number

01:07:04.500 of other people

01:07:06.080 who might have

01:07:06.620 violence on their

01:07:07.260 mind.

01:07:08.080 Now,

01:07:08.620 don't bring guns,

01:07:11.120 don't bring knives

01:07:12.320 or bombs,

01:07:13.820 like I'm not

01:07:14.540 suggesting that

01:07:15.080 anybody bring

01:07:15.700 weapons of death

01:07:17.220 to any kind

01:07:18.500 of an event,

01:07:19.600 but if Antifa

01:07:21.560 were outnumbered

01:07:22.620 five to one

01:07:23.440 in the street

01:07:25.000 where they were

01:07:25.480 trying to make

01:07:26.060 trouble,

01:07:27.080 five to one

01:07:27.840 would probably

01:07:28.560 make a lot

01:07:30.880 of these things

01:07:31.380 go away. 0.82

01:07:32.800 So,

01:07:33.520 I would say

01:07:35.060 that if

01:07:36.020 conservatives

01:07:37.260 don't actually

01:07:38.100 literally organize

01:07:39.120 and have names

01:07:40.480 of the people

01:07:40.980 who have signed

01:07:41.600 up to literally

01:07:42.400 go onto the street

01:07:43.460 the moment

01:07:44.520 it's needed

01:07:45.040 and you don't

01:07:45.700 have five times

01:07:47.100 as many of them,

01:07:48.660 there's no point

01:07:49.380 in having an election.

01:07:50.460 There really isn't.

01:07:51.400 And the Proud Boys

01:07:53.360 have fucked up 0.93

01:07:54.100 everything.

01:07:54.740 Let me say this.

01:07:55.540 I don't have a problem

01:07:57.100 with the Proud Boys

01:07:58.800 stated philosophy.

01:08:01.000 I know they're

01:08:01.380 accused of things

01:08:02.260 which is not

01:08:03.160 within their

01:08:03.680 stated philosophy.

01:08:04.620 They're accused

01:08:05.100 of being racist

01:08:06.320 or whatever,

01:08:06.920 but that's not

01:08:07.360 part of their deal.

01:08:09.180 I don't know

01:08:09.500 if any of them

01:08:10.040 are racist. 0.84

01:08:10.880 They're probably

01:08:11.240 racist everywhere.

01:08:12.500 But the Proud Boys,

01:08:13.540 unfortunately,

01:08:14.340 they brought

01:08:14.720 their brand

01:08:15.860 into the mix.

01:08:17.740 And while I believe

01:08:18.660 that they were

01:08:19.120 well-intentioned

01:08:20.020 in many cases,

01:08:22.060 sometimes I think

01:08:22.640 they just like to fight,

01:08:23.920 but I think

01:08:24.380 they were sort of

01:08:25.100 well-intentioned.

01:08:25.940 They're patriots,

01:08:26.900 but they completely

01:08:28.300 fucked up the situation

01:08:29.420 because they drew

01:08:31.400 all the attention

01:08:32.120 and they were

01:08:33.540 too easy to paint

01:08:34.640 as the bad guys.

01:08:37.320 The people who need

01:08:38.260 to be in the street

01:08:38.900 needs to be

01:08:39.440 everybody but them.

01:08:41.560 Even though

01:08:42.200 they're the most capable

01:08:43.100 in terms of fighting,

01:08:44.820 the most effective

01:08:45.980 would be people

01:08:49.240 who are not part

01:08:50.020 of an organization.

01:08:51.780 You don't want them

01:08:52.800 to show up and say,

01:08:53.620 hey, we're Proud Boys.

01:08:54.340 You want people

01:08:54.900 to show up and say,

01:08:55.720 we're conservatives

01:08:56.400 or we want to save

01:08:57.920 the country

01:08:58.380 or we're patriots

01:08:59.320 or something.

01:08:59.660 You don't want them

01:09:00.160 part of a club.

01:09:01.560 As soon as you make

01:09:02.360 them part of a club,

01:09:03.540 then anybody who does

01:09:04.860 something bad

01:09:05.520 in the club

01:09:06.300 messes up the whole thing.

01:09:09.720 So as soon as you say

01:09:11.100 it's a club,

01:09:12.740 any one bad apple

01:09:14.000 in that club

01:09:14.600 ruins the whole club

01:09:15.760 in terms of

01:09:16.320 political opinion.

01:09:17.660 So just don't bring

01:09:18.660 a club.

01:09:19.820 I mean,

01:09:20.260 an organization club.

01:09:21.360 The other club,

01:09:23.900 probably a bad idea too.

01:09:28.340 So you think lawyers

01:09:29.780 are pretty good

01:09:30.280 at arguing, right?

01:09:31.420 You'd say that maybe

01:09:32.520 artists are not good

01:09:33.380 at it,

01:09:33.660 but lawyers are

01:09:34.440 real good at it.

01:09:36.000 And I hear

01:09:36.860 lawyer Ross Garber,

01:09:38.440 who's literally

01:09:39.140 an impeachment lawyer,

01:09:42.020 and he teaches

01:09:42.680 at Tulane Law School.

01:09:44.040 So a very qualified

01:09:44.820 guy in the law.

01:09:47.120 And he tweeted

01:09:47.820 this at me.

01:09:48.380 He said,

01:09:48.660 I have done

01:09:49.020 election investigations,

01:09:50.620 mostly on behalf

01:09:51.520 of Republicans.

01:09:52.660 So he's saying

01:09:53.760 that he's sort

01:09:54.660 of unbiased here.

01:09:56.080 And he said,

01:09:57.120 I have seen

01:09:57.680 lots of misconduct

01:09:59.100 and irregularities.

01:10:00.580 So here's a person

01:10:01.320 who's experienced,

01:10:02.780 and he knows

01:10:03.280 that elections

01:10:03.880 can have lots

01:10:05.160 of conduct

01:10:05.720 and irregularities,

01:10:06.820 because he's seen

01:10:07.360 it himself.

01:10:08.340 So far, so good.

01:10:09.760 And he said,

01:10:10.340 I expressed concern

01:10:11.440 heading into this election.

01:10:13.300 Even better.

01:10:14.440 He's not only

01:10:15.280 seen a lot of fraud

01:10:17.160 in elections,

01:10:17.920 but he warned us

01:10:18.760 about this election.

01:10:19.800 So far, so good.

01:10:21.320 And then he said,

01:10:22.120 but I have not seen

01:10:23.020 evidence of potentially

01:10:24.160 result-changing problems.

01:10:26.820 And then he referred

01:10:27.940 to my analogy

01:10:28.720 about the no-melted

01:10:29.740 ice cream.

01:10:31.020 Does that seem

01:10:31.460 like a good argument?

01:10:34.780 Is that a world-class

01:10:36.380 lawyer argument there?

01:10:40.760 Because I'm pretty sure

01:10:42.360 there are a lot of things

01:10:43.360 in this world

01:10:44.220 that I haven't seen

01:10:46.520 that actually happened.

01:10:49.600 For example,

01:10:51.080 suppose you were

01:10:51.880 to witness

01:10:52.500 a murder

01:10:53.240 by gunfire.

01:10:55.280 And you saw

01:10:55.800 the person

01:10:56.240 take out the gun,

01:10:58.140 aim it at the victim,

01:10:59.340 pull the trigger,

01:11:00.320 bang! 1.00

01:11:01.200 And then the victim

01:11:02.020 gets a hole

01:11:03.000 in their body

01:11:03.560 and they go,

01:11:03.940 and they die. 0.52

01:11:05.760 And that's what

01:11:06.680 you witnessed.

01:11:08.360 Can you say

01:11:09.260 that you witnessed

01:11:11.220 the person

01:11:12.960 with the gun

01:11:13.640 shooting the victim

01:11:15.580 who the bullet

01:11:16.680 entered

01:11:17.160 and died?

01:11:18.660 Can you say

01:11:19.440 you saw that?

01:11:21.200 No.

01:11:22.460 Because you can't

01:11:23.320 see the bullet.

01:11:25.180 Right?

01:11:25.840 You saw the gun

01:11:26.660 go off

01:11:27.140 and you know

01:11:27.800 what guns do.

01:11:29.140 You saw the person

01:11:30.140 with the bullet

01:11:30.660 hole

01:11:30.940 and you

01:11:33.060 logically

01:11:33.880 connected them.

01:11:35.540 But did you see it?

01:11:37.780 No.

01:11:38.680 Because if you can't

01:11:39.300 see the bullet,

01:11:40.360 you don't know

01:11:41.380 the bullet

01:11:42.000 actually came out

01:11:42.760 of the gun.

01:11:43.660 You don't know

01:11:44.340 if somebody

01:11:44.740 behind him

01:11:45.400 shot him.

01:11:46.840 Now, of course,

01:11:47.300 if you do the ballistics,

01:11:48.220 you'll find out.

01:11:49.080 But in terms of

01:11:49.900 witnessing,

01:11:50.480 there are a lot

01:11:52.500 of things

01:11:52.880 we don't see,

01:11:54.540 such as

01:11:55.120 actually watching

01:11:55.920 the bullet

01:11:56.440 that you know

01:11:58.000 happened.

01:11:58.920 Because you heard

01:11:59.620 the gun go off,

01:12:00.500 you saw it was aimed,

01:12:01.460 you saw the result.

01:12:02.260 You don't have

01:12:03.220 to see it all.

01:12:04.660 You don't have

01:12:05.040 to see every bit

01:12:05.700 of it.

01:12:06.620 So likewise,

01:12:07.860 here's a guy

01:12:09.520 who has seen

01:12:11.500 enough election

01:12:12.420 fraud personally

01:12:13.460 that he knows

01:12:14.320 it can happen.

01:12:15.720 So he knows

01:12:16.540 it can happen

01:12:17.380 because he's seen

01:12:17.940 a lot of it.

01:12:19.020 And he knows

01:12:20.040 that the incentive

01:12:21.160 to do it

01:12:21.720 this election

01:12:22.360 was sky high.

01:12:24.900 That's all

01:12:25.540 you need to know.

01:12:27.200 It can be done,

01:12:29.060 which he confirms

01:12:30.100 because he's seen

01:12:30.700 a lot of it.

01:12:31.220 and the motivation

01:12:34.320 was sky high.

01:12:35.640 You don't need

01:12:36.560 to see the bullet

01:12:37.400 to know that it

01:12:39.380 happened.

01:12:40.560 I think his

01:12:41.020 argument was

01:12:41.640 poor.

01:12:45.460 And I got a few

01:12:46.360 other things

01:12:46.780 that I don't think

01:12:47.260 are interesting

01:12:47.780 enough to talk

01:12:48.360 about,

01:12:48.620 so I won't.

01:12:50.140 And that,

01:12:51.240 my friends,

01:12:54.300 is the end

01:12:55.220 of Coffee with

01:12:57.140 Scott Adams

01:12:57.540 for today.

01:12:57.980 I think it's

01:12:58.680 maybe the best

01:12:59.680 one I've done

01:13:00.200 so far today.

01:13:01.480 Don't you think?

01:13:03.320 All right,

01:13:03.840 I'm just going to

01:13:04.240 look at your

01:13:04.580 comments for a

01:13:05.240 moment because

01:13:05.840 I've been looking

01:13:06.380 at my notes.

01:13:07.060 Oh, yes.

01:13:08.700 The Space Force,

01:13:10.060 how did I skip

01:13:10.920 that one?

01:13:12.280 The Space Force

01:13:13.040 has decided that

01:13:13.940 the name for

01:13:14.900 their fighters,

01:13:18.320 the name for

01:13:19.120 their military

01:13:19.640 people will be

01:13:20.720 Guardians.

01:13:22.400 They'll be called

01:13:23.320 Guardians.

01:13:24.620 What do you think

01:13:25.080 of that?

01:13:26.920 I don't like

01:13:28.200 it at all.

01:13:30.500 I wanted to

01:13:31.540 like it,

01:13:32.500 but I don't.

01:13:33.960 Number one,

01:13:34.700 it reminds you

01:13:35.340 of the movie

01:13:36.820 Guardians of the

01:13:37.640 Galaxy,

01:13:38.340 so automatically

01:13:39.000 it feels silly

01:13:40.040 because, you know,

01:13:41.080 there's a talking

01:13:41.940 raccoon in that

01:13:42.900 movie.

01:13:44.000 So,

01:13:44.880 Guardians of the

01:13:46.560 Universe,

01:13:47.380 that's what I

01:13:48.260 think of,

01:13:48.980 and so it makes

01:13:49.620 it seem less

01:13:50.400 serious.

01:13:51.160 So that's not

01:13:51.600 good.

01:13:52.100 But here's the

01:13:52.580 other part.

01:13:53.000 The problem

01:13:55.120 for me is

01:13:55.940 that they're

01:13:56.320 in heaven,

01:13:57.680 meaning that

01:13:59.100 they're in

01:13:59.560 space, so

01:14:00.580 they're sort

01:14:01.500 of up there

01:14:02.200 like God,

01:14:05.220 basically,

01:14:06.120 you know,

01:14:06.460 in an analogy

01:14:07.640 sense.

01:14:09.120 And there's

01:14:09.840 something about

01:14:10.340 the word

01:14:10.660 Guardian that

01:14:12.340 feels religious.

01:14:16.340 Guardian doesn't

01:14:17.340 sound military,

01:14:18.760 and maybe that's

01:14:19.500 what they wanted,

01:14:20.560 but Guardian

01:14:21.140 doesn't really

01:14:22.360 sound like

01:14:23.760 the right

01:14:24.100 word.

01:14:24.740 Guardian feels

01:14:25.660 like a cult.

01:14:28.700 I guess that's

01:14:29.580 what it is.

01:14:29.900 I just realized

01:14:30.820 that that's

01:14:31.220 what it is.

01:14:31.960 The word

01:14:32.420 Guardian doesn't

01:14:33.440 sound like a

01:14:34.080 military term.

01:14:35.100 It sounds like

01:14:35.660 a cult.

01:14:39.460 In NXIVM,

01:14:42.260 the cult we've

01:14:43.900 been talking

01:14:44.280 about,

01:14:45.120 what was the

01:14:45.680 name they had

01:14:46.380 for, or at

01:14:48.060 least in the

01:14:48.600 sub-part of

01:14:49.460 NXIVM,

01:14:50.200 where Keith

01:14:51.320 Ranieri had

01:14:52.200 his, let's

01:14:55.740 say, his

01:14:56.280 disciples, I

01:14:57.560 don't know,

01:14:58.020 lovers,

01:14:58.560 disciples.

01:14:59.820 So he was

01:15:00.680 called Vanguard.

01:15:03.180 So in the

01:15:03.760 context of an

01:15:05.160 actual alleged

01:15:06.520 cult, the name

01:15:08.960 that they used

01:15:09.560 for their leader

01:15:10.160 was Vanguard.

01:15:12.460 Guardian feels

01:15:14.320 like that word,

01:15:15.100 doesn't it?

01:15:15.520 it feels just

01:15:18.100 a little bit

01:15:18.580 more like a

01:15:19.140 cult than it

01:15:20.180 does like a

01:15:20.840 military thing.

01:15:21.420 So that's my

01:15:21.840 opinion.

01:15:22.900 I don't think

01:15:23.520 it's important.

01:15:24.200 I think any

01:15:24.660 name you put

01:15:25.120 it on, it's

01:15:25.440 going to be

01:15:25.680 fine.

01:15:27.320 And somebody

01:15:31.020 says Vanguard.

01:15:32.520 Yeah.

01:15:33.720 Yeah, I

01:15:34.280 understand that a

01:15:35.020 Guardian is one

01:15:35.820 who guards, and

01:15:37.420 you know, it's

01:15:38.720 not that it's

01:15:39.200 not technically

01:15:40.000 accurate enough.

01:15:41.680 I don't have

01:15:43.740 any better

01:15:44.080 ideas, so I

01:15:45.160 don't think it's

01:15:45.800 a big deal.

01:15:46.680 That's all I

01:15:47.080 got for now, and

01:15:47.760 I will talk to

01:15:48.400 you tomorrow.

01:15:51.880 All right, all

01:15:52.520 you YouTubers, I'm

01:15:53.640 still here for you

01:15:54.360 for a moment.

01:16:00.200 Should have

01:16:00.740 gone with

01:16:01.160 Starship Troopers.

01:16:04.400 Troopers wouldn't

01:16:05.020 be bad.

01:16:10.020 Orbitiers.

01:16:10.420 The Orbitiers.

01:16:12.620 That's not

01:16:12.900 bad.

01:16:15.180 Tara Keepers?

01:16:16.140 What's that

01:16:16.460 mean?

01:16:18.280 That's right, I

01:16:18.980 love you the most

01:16:19.700 on Periscope.

01:16:20.780 It's true.

01:16:22.600 Space Force

01:16:23.320 Tubins?

01:16:23.900 I don't think

01:16:24.360 that's going to

01:16:24.780 catch on.

01:16:26.200 Did they ever

01:16:26.960 admit about lying

01:16:27.820 about masks?

01:16:28.620 They did, yeah.

01:16:29.760 Fauci did.

01:16:30.760 In a sense.

01:16:31.860 In a sense.

01:16:32.540 Because they

01:16:33.000 admitted there was

01:16:33.640 a shortage

01:16:34.020 problem.

01:16:36.740 Have I seen

01:16:37.480 Stand Up

01:16:38.020 Maths Channel?

01:16:38.880 No.

01:16:40.980 Where's my

01:16:41.520 cat?

01:16:42.260 I don't know.

01:16:43.140 She needs to 0.98

01:16:43.680 give me some

01:16:45.880 love.

01:16:47.460 All right, that's

01:16:47.980 all for now and

01:16:48.600 I will talk to

01:16:49.240 you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 19, 2020

Episode 1224 Scott Adams： I Teach You When to Disagree With the Experts Because That is an Essential Skill

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript