Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1413 Scott Adams： And Now For the Best Simultaneous Sip in the World!

00:00:00.000 It's time for the best livestream in the world. It's gonna happen now. It's called

00:00:08.520 Coffee with Scott Adams and I think science has proven that nothing is

00:00:14.460 better. Really, nothing. I'm back on the mainland. I might even show you the view

00:00:21.600 from here. Would you like to see it? Sure, I think you would. Here you go. Let's see

00:00:27.660 if I can reverse this view for you. Ta-da! Columbus Circle. You can probably guess

00:00:35.420 where I'm at. But that's the view today. I'm just staying here for a few hours and

00:00:41.580 then heading home. Wanted to break up the flight from Greece. So we did a quick

00:00:47.280 sleepover in New York City and then we're out of here in a few hours. But not until

00:00:51.960 I've done Coffee with Scott Adams. If you'd like to enjoy it, the simultaneous sip

00:00:58.980 that is, to its maximum extent, what do you think you need? Well, I'll tell you. You

00:01:03.780 need a cup or a mugger glass, a tank of chalice, a time canteen, a drink of glass, a vessel

00:01:07.920 of any kind. Join me now for the dopamine hit of the day. The thing that makes

00:01:12.520 absolutely everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and it happens now.

00:01:22.580 Oh yeah, that's good.

00:01:26.800 Yes, I'm in New York City, but only for a few hours. Didn't have time to do anything

00:01:31.380 here. We're just slept overnight and then heading home a little bit. Let's talk about

00:01:36.140 the news. First of all, I'd like to give my compliments to somebody at Fox News. I'm not

00:01:43.500 sure who, but somebody wrote this headline and I'd like to call this out. The headline

00:01:50.480 reads, US Open, male streaker hits balls on fairway. However you snuck that through your

00:02:03.680 editor, good job. Or if you were the editor, good job. I'd like to add to that, this story.

00:02:11.320 Do you know how that naked streaker at the US Open golf tournament, do you know how he

00:02:17.740 broke his leg? Fell off the ball washer. Now if you golf, that's hilarious. If you don't

00:02:25.640 golf, you don't know that there's a thing that's about the size of a parking meter

00:02:29.440 that you put your dirty golf ball in and crank it and it literally washes your balls.

00:02:35.940 So think back to the joke. Much better now, isn't it? Now that you have that context.

00:02:42.080 Well, I love the story about Ronnie Jackson, who had been the president's personal,

00:02:48.500 had been Trump's personal physician, as well as somebody else before him. Maybe it was Obama.

00:02:54.960 Well, and Ronnie Jackson is calling for Biden to take a cognitive test. Now, don't you think that's

00:03:04.300 a good idea? And how does most of the news, the entire left-leaning news, sort of not pay

00:03:12.460 attention to that story? He is qualified. He was a president's physician. And if a president's

00:03:21.320 physician says, hmm, I think I'd give that one a cognitive test, I think you have to respect that.

00:03:28.960 It doesn't mean that there's anything wrong, but it's certainly enough of an indication you ought

00:03:34.660 to check. And I don't think anything will come of this because obviously they're not going to

00:03:39.820 test Biden. Does anybody think there's any chance, any chance, that the Democrats will allow Biden to

00:03:47.380 take a cognitive test? Nope. Because I think they like him just the way he is. Whatever that way is,

00:03:54.660 pretty sure they like it that way. Here's an interesting story. There's a company called

00:04:01.940 LSAT e-Home International. And they're going to build 20 what they call e-homes that are going to have

00:04:09.280 Tesla solar panels. I believe that means as the shingles, so as a replacement roof kind of thing.

00:04:18.120 So it's going to have Tesla solar panels, plus the Tesla power walls, which are the battery that you

00:04:24.460 use at home to store your energy when it's sunny, so you can use it at night when it's not. And then

00:04:30.260 also a charging station for your presumably electric car. And this is a pretty strong package.

00:04:38.120 I have to say there's something that speaks to me about a home that could live for a while if the

00:04:47.000 main grid dies. Because I live in California and the odds of our grid failing in the next week or so

00:04:54.900 are, I don't know, 100%. We're going to be, I would guess, there's almost no chance that I could

00:05:03.000 make it through the summer, especially with the heat as it is, without losing electricity. I think

00:05:10.520 it's going to happen. So I would pay extra. I'm not sure if you would, but I would pay extra for a home

00:05:16.620 that had that little bit of extra electricity protection. So this is great, I think. In terms of

00:05:24.300 the, well, in terms of the golden age, I want to see homes that can live off the grid.

00:05:32.540 Tremendous, tremendous benefit to everybody, I think. Especially if your grid is going to get

00:05:37.340 hacked. I mean, we can't stop the grid from getting hacked. But maybe your house will be okay if you get

00:05:43.900 this deal. So I was looking at CNN's pushback on the Tucker Carlson and Revolver idea that

00:05:54.280 there are some FBI assets within these various, sorry, my stomach is making a noise. There's some

00:06:01.880 FBI assets that might be encouraging violence within the groups that they've penetrated.

00:06:08.960 But here's the pushback. So this would be a reason to not believe that these FBI agents who may or may

00:06:17.400 not have penetrated these groups, we assume they have, are pushing them to do anything bad as opposed

00:06:22.680 to just observing. And let me read what Ross Garber, a Tulane University law professor and former CNN

00:06:33.780 legal analyst, said. He said, quote, federal agents acting within the scope of their duties are never

00:06:41.300 considered unindicted co-conspirators, because by definition, they aren't conspiring with the alleged

00:06:47.420 bad guys. To which I say, doesn't that only matter if they're no longer undercover? Right? If they're

00:06:57.880 undercover, wouldn't you have to treat them the way you're treating everybody else? But maybe don't name

00:07:02.680 them, you just, you know, you tell people that they're indicted, and then they can tell their other

00:07:07.420 buddies, yeah, I got indicted. You got indicted? I got indicted too, because I'm just like you. I'm not

00:07:12.840 an FBI agent. So I need, I need a fact check on this. Give me a fact check. Would there ever be a

00:07:20.400 situation in which they would, let's say the legal system, would call an FBI agent who's still

00:07:28.920 undercover, the still undercover part is important, would they call him an unindicted co-conspirator just

00:07:34.980 so they've captured all the people involved, but treated them differently? Is that a thing? Or is,

00:07:42.460 does Ross Garber have a solid point? I'll tell you that as a non-lawyer reading it, it's not persuasive.

00:07:51.500 But if a few other people, especially if people on both sides who were lawyers said, yeah, yeah, yeah,

00:07:57.140 he's right about this, I could be persuaded. But speaking about persuasion, so I'm going to focus on

00:08:04.300 some topics you've heard before. Don't turn it off. There are a bunch of people who tell me,

00:08:11.780 whenever you talk about vaccinations or masks, we turn off the live stream. I'm only going to be

00:08:16.880 talking about the persuasion involved with those things, right? So there's some new stuff, and that's

00:08:23.780 worth learning the persuasion element. So the CDC has been saying that, from their perspective, scientifically,

00:08:36.000 in the scientific sense, that if you're fully vaccinated, you don't need to wear a mask

00:08:41.180 for basically anything, but you should obey local and maybe business requirements.

00:08:49.580 Now, is that fair? For the CDC to say, scientifically, you don't need them. But if the local officials

00:08:59.320 require it, you're going to have to obey them. And if a company requires it, of course, it's a right.

00:09:05.880 Now, that's okay. But I feel persuasion-wise, it's a failure. Here's what they should have said.

00:09:12.700 They should have said that you don't need masks scientifically. And if anybody requires you to

00:09:20.540 have a mask, be they local government or be they a company, they're almost certainly operating

00:09:27.700 non-scientifically. Because you've got to arm the citizens, right? If you're going to come out and say

00:09:34.420 science doesn't think you need a mask if you're vaccinated, say it. And then say the next thing,

00:09:40.860 which is the obvious part, which is if your state government is still requiring it, they're not

00:09:46.640 acting according to the science. Because if you say that, then the citizens can act on it and just

00:09:53.940 push it through, right? We can just say, look, the CDC just said in the clearest possible terms

00:09:59.580 that your current rule is anti-science, or at least ignore science, right? Give us a little help,

00:10:07.860 CDC. We're dealing with local restrictions, companies that are being cautious. Give us a

00:10:14.520 little cover. Just let the citizens do the rest. We'll handle the local stuff. You've just got to

00:10:19.860 give us a little cover and you're not doing it. You're giving them an out. Say it directly. They're

00:10:25.120 not following the science. And then let us handle it locally. We'll take care of it. But got to give us

00:10:31.440 a little cover. So there are two arguments, which I'm seeing in the news, that I consider very

00:10:39.000 non-persuasive. The first article, or the first argument, is that masks work. Now, I happen to be

00:10:48.300 on that side of the belief system. But the arguments for why they work are, it's hard to notice,

00:10:57.380 it's hard not to notice how bad they are. So I was just reading through a number of articles in the

00:11:03.940 common press about why masks work. But here's what I would do if I were trying to persuade you that

00:11:11.800 masks work. Anything I wrote on that topic, I would say, let's begin by pointing you to these five

00:11:18.920 studies that say masks work, along with maybe a few experts from different places who say, yeah,

00:11:26.660 these five studies and other reasons totally works. Here's what is not persuasive. Experts say masks

00:11:34.860 work. No, not in 2021. Don't tell me experts say masks work. That doesn't mean anything. If you want

00:11:45.660 me to wear a mask, don't do it that way. Point to the actual studies, then point to the experts who are

00:11:53.020 talking about those studies, then you have something, right? So I would say that the way journalists

00:11:59.300 especially are presenting this information to the public, you shouldn't believe it. Because it's

00:12:05.780 presented in a non-persuasive form. Should you believe experts when they are non-persuasive in

00:12:13.040 their communication? That's usually telling you something. If they can't persuade you of something

00:12:19.140 that's clearly true, let's say, for example, it's clearly true, I think you have every right to be

00:12:27.440 skeptical. Now, again, I think that masks work in the right situations. Here's the other argument

00:12:33.240 that is really poorly made. Masks don't work. Wouldn't that be easy to prove, too? You just show the

00:12:43.920 studies that say they don't work, whatever. There's an article in Town Hall essentially saying that masks

00:12:50.900 don't work. And I asked on Twitter for people to tell me what are the obvious problems with that

00:12:57.920 analysis. And there are a lot of them. I'll just run through a few. Number one, the headline didn't match

00:13:06.880 the article, which is the headline says masks don't work or indicates that, whereas the article says

00:13:14.140 mask mandates don't work. Are those the same? Masks don't work versus mask mandates don't work? No,

00:13:23.920 they're not the same. So right off the bat, if you see an article where the headline doesn't match the

00:13:29.940 content, you're done, right? All persuasion power is gone. It's just gone. But there's more problems

00:13:37.820 with it. So number one, and by the way, Joshua Gans, who you should follow, and is an economist.

00:13:48.320 And do I always tell you that economists are the ones you should look to, to figure out if you've at

00:13:53.620 least compared the right stuff, right? Because that's what economists are good at. Like, did you compare

00:13:58.800 the right two things? And that's usually what we get wrong. Andres Bekos was pointing out that for a

00:14:07.660 start, he said in a tweet responding to this, when researchers say, quote, associated with, they mean

00:14:14.140 they couldn't say whether one thing caused the other or not. So apparently mask mandates are not

00:14:22.100 associated with some obvious reduction in infections. There's a reason that we favor

00:14:33.020 randomized controlled trials, right? Because those tend to be fairly, you know, good, and everything

00:14:39.440 else isn't. You know, it's not like there's a randomized controlled study, and then there's

00:14:45.420 things that are almost as good. That's not anything. There's just randomized controlled studies

00:14:50.540 that are pretty good, and everything else is sort of closer to nonsense. Now, even the meta-analyses

00:14:56.680 of the nonsense can be a problem, but that's another topic. So, and then Joshua Gans points out that

00:15:05.940 there's also an aggregate effect, meaning that masks might reduce infections, but it might make people

00:15:14.460 feel a little bolder and to risk more infection than they would without a mask, and maybe it cancels

00:15:20.280 out, which wouldn't tell you if masks work. It would just tell you if mandates work, and that's a little

00:15:27.460 unclear. Here's my, here's my personal favorite, this, that it doesn't make sense to average mask

00:15:38.380 effectiveness. Let me ask you this. For those of you who are anti-mask, and I know many of you are,

00:15:45.120 there's many of you watching this who say masks just don't work, right? So in the comments, and this

00:15:52.260 is only for the people who say masks should never have been used, if your grandmother had not been

00:15:59.820 vaccinated, and maybe she had an immune issue, would you wear a mask around her? Let's say you're not

00:16:09.280 vaccinated yet. You're not vaccinated. Would you wear a mask around your own grandmother who had maybe

00:16:16.220 an immunity problem? I'm saying mostly no's. Man, I would not want to be in your family.

00:16:24.760 I didn't know which way this was going to go. I'm seeing lots of yeses, but more no's. Yeah. So

00:16:34.140 by the way, this demonstrates a, an important principle, which is the consistency principle.

00:16:41.960 When people take a stand, they don't want to change their minds, even if there's a reason to,

00:16:47.420 like people will just dig in, you know? And when I ask you from a risk management perspective,

00:16:54.280 you wouldn't put on a mask. Let's say it wasn't required. It's just up to you. You wouldn't put

00:16:59.300 on a mask around your own grandmother when, when every expert in the civilized world says it's a

00:17:05.900 good idea and you still wouldn't do it. Now, keep in mind, you might be talking to grandma for 15

00:17:12.280 minutes and you wouldn't wear a mask for 15 minutes to maybe save your grandmother's life

00:17:19.540 according to every civilized country's medical experts.

00:17:27.020 Okay. Well, at least you're consistent. So I'll give you that.

00:17:32.160 But here's my point. It doesn't make sense to average mask effectiveness because what are you

00:17:38.560 averaging? I would say 90% of the time that I spend or have spent with a mask was in places that

00:17:47.420 nobody was going to get it anyway. How much of the mask wearing is outdoors? People jogging. I'm

00:17:52.820 looking at the street. There's all these people wearing a mask. They have no chance of giving it or

00:17:58.420 getting it walking down the street in New York City. No chance. Right? And yet they do. So would

00:18:06.160 you average those mask wearers who are getting exactly zero benefit with the person talking to their

00:18:12.880 immunocompromised grandmother for 15 minutes in a poorly ventilated room?

00:18:19.960 What does it mean to average one of those with the other one? It's like I averaged an apple and

00:18:25.100 an orange and got a tangerine or something. It doesn't make sense. So when you're looking at mask

00:18:30.600 effectiveness, and this is something Andres Beckhouse pointed out, you need to slice that a little bit

00:18:36.840 finer. Say these are the places we really think it might make a difference, and then see if it does.

00:18:43.140 And here are the places we're pretty sure it doesn't. But why would you average those things

00:18:47.700 together? That makes no sense at all. So both the arguments for and against masks are so poorly

00:18:54.660 presented to the public that neither of them are credible. They're really not. Now I still have an

00:19:01.380 opinion that friction always works. So friction always works. Build a wall, doesn't stop everybody.

00:19:09.960 But it gives you friction, probably reduces the number of people coming across the border.

00:19:15.100 Wear a mask, doesn't stop infections, period. But it probably causes some friction because the

00:19:21.840 water particles are bigger than the holes in the mask, even if the virus isn't. So you're stopping

00:19:29.120 and solving it, right? Now my understanding is that the people who know how to look at studies

00:19:34.240 are pretty sure that the studies show that masks work. I don't know if those studies are accurate or

00:19:40.120 not. But to me, whenever your common sense matches what the science is, it's a little bit better than

00:19:47.720 not matching. All right, let's talk about critical race theory. Let's say you don't like it. And I think

00:19:57.780 that fits for mostly people watching this live stream. Let's say you think critical race theory

00:20:03.640 and the teaching of it in schools is bad for your kids because it just sets up some kind of a racial

00:20:09.800 division without solving anything, which would be a common point of view. But what do you see in terms

00:20:17.440 of persuasion for how to persuade against it? Well, mostly I see people saying it's Marxist.

00:20:24.940 How many people do you think know what that means or even think it's bad or even believe it? It took me

00:20:34.180 a long time to even figure out what that meant. And I consider myself reasonably well-informed.

00:20:40.740 Let's say, just for the sake of argument, I'm not trying to brag, but because I pay attention

00:20:46.280 to the news, I'm probably in the top 10% of people who are informed about things, right? Not perfectly

00:20:55.180 informed, but probably the top 10%, only because I spend so much time doing it. And I didn't know

00:21:00.800 what the hell anybody meant by saying it was Marxist. It was just like it didn't connect with anything in

00:21:06.860 my brain. Now, later somebody made a good argument and said it's about class warfare. So instead of class

00:21:14.380 being rich versus poor, it was class as race, black versus white, etc. And that made sense. But it still was

00:21:23.500 conceptual. Like I still, like it didn't really grab me. I could get it. I could understand it. But it didn't really

00:21:32.660 move me in any way. So the Marxist thing may be true. It may be completely true. It might be important,

00:21:38.160 but has no persuasive value to it because people just don't know what it means.

00:21:43.620 And when you say it's anti-white, if you're a Republican, you already didn't like it probably,

00:21:50.960 so that sounds good to you. But are you trying to persuade Republicans? No, they're already persuaded.

00:21:58.180 You're trying to persuade the people who are not already on your side, right?

00:22:02.900 If you say to them, hey, your critical race theory is anti-white, what do they say? What would the

00:22:09.480 people on the left say about that? Oh, yeah, that's what we mean. Yeah. Yeah, it is sort of anti-white.

00:22:16.580 Exactly. That's why we're doing it. It means nothing. It has no persuasive power to say it's anti-white

00:22:24.160 or that it's Marxist. I think you could argue it's both of those things. So I'm not saying it's not true-ish,

00:22:31.160 right? They're both true-ish. They're not like true in the, you know, there's nothing else to say

00:22:38.700 about it sense. You know, there's context. But it isn't persuasive. So I submit the following frame

00:22:46.660 instead. Number one, you want to simplify the hell out of it. If you're talking about the origins of it

00:22:53.460 and the intellectual history of it, you're already dead. There's nothing to be had there. Here's what

00:22:59.980 I would suggest. Keep it simple, like build the wall. And here's a frame that I'm testing out.

00:23:06.420 So instead of saying it's Marxist or anti-white, say it teaches kids that they're either losers or

00:23:14.920 assholes based on their color. Let me say that again. It teaches your kids that they can only be

00:23:23.720 one of two things, losers or assholes. Now, that's just true. Meaning that when you hear it,

00:23:33.580 you think, oh, yeah, even if you're in favor of it, you feel that's true, right? Because the whole

00:23:41.440 point of critical race theory is that if you're born black or a person of color, that you have such

00:23:46.760 a disadvantage that you're going to be, relatively speaking, a loser in life. And that's your fate.

00:23:54.840 You're sort of locked into a racial limit on your abilities. So that would be a loser.

00:24:03.060 Maybe still winning, but not winning as much as, let's say, white people in this model of things.

00:24:08.920 So you'd be a loser. But let's say you're a white person in this model. You're not doing enough,

00:24:15.560 are you? You haven't done enough. And you're just benefiting from the work that other people did

00:24:22.260 in the past. You're benefiting from slavery and racism and all that. And you're not doing enough

00:24:28.940 about it. You're kind of an asshole. You're kind of an asshole. You're just taking free stuff and

00:24:32.980 acting like you deserved it. It's kind of a jerk, right? Now, the simplification is what makes this

00:24:40.900 powerful. But also, it has to ring right, right? When you hear it, you have to be able to say,

00:24:48.240 hmm, that's kind of true. And I think this meets that. But we'll A-B test it. So instead of CRT for

00:24:55.440 critical race theory, I think I'd replace it with LOA, losers or assholes. So if you send your kid to

00:25:02.740 school, which one do you want him to learn, him or her? What do you want them to learn? Do you want

00:25:10.180 to learn that they're a loser or an asshole? Because those are the only options that it gives you,

00:25:15.380 in my opinion. Here's a recommendation for a follow on Twitter, if you're not already following,

00:25:24.060 Malcolm Flex. I think if you just search for Malcolm Flex, it'll pop up. But his Twitter handle is

00:25:33.180 Malcolm underscore Flex 48. Here's why I recommend it. There are some people that I've been following

00:25:42.460 for a while on Twitter who consistently operate at the strategy level of awareness. I think you could

00:25:48.940 actually rank levels of awareness where the strategy level I put at the top, meaning, yeah,

00:25:56.140 you have problems. We all have problems. But if you use the right strategy, you effectively overcome

00:26:01.960 them, right? So Malcolm's a strategy guy. So and he's got a talent stack that's one of the best I've

00:26:09.140 seen. So he's a, he's a former division one athlete. So he learned, you know, discipline,

00:26:16.240 obviously, systems, because you'd have to be a systems person to be a high level athlete.

00:26:21.120 He's also, you know, jacked up, you know, he's just like, just immensely muscled out. So he knows

00:26:26.420 discipline and hard work and systems, right? So that's, that's just the start of the talent

00:26:31.920 sack. But he's also an industry research scientist. He's got STEM experience. He knows marketing. He

00:26:39.200 knows persuasion. I think some of it you may have gotten from me. He's got social media skills.

00:26:46.160 He's got writing skills. These are just the ones I've seen. Who knows how many other skills he's

00:26:51.820 acquired. But it's very obvious when you see his tweets and his opinions, that he's taken a

00:26:57.600 strategy approach to life. And it's working. And I would submit to you that everybody who takes a

00:27:04.980 strategy approach gets a good result. It's very, it's very observable. You don't need a lot of

00:27:11.900 science. You just look, okay, you're taking a strategy approach to life. Check back in five years.

00:27:19.140 Looks good. Five years later. Yeah, that worked. If you take a victim versus oppressor approach,

00:27:25.000 how's that working out? The victim versus oppressor thing might be perfectly true,

00:27:32.740 depending how you define it. But it doesn't help you. It's a lower level of thinking. Whereas

00:27:38.940 Malcolm is just at a higher level of thinking. And so if you had to follow somebody to figure out

00:27:44.920 how to live your life, I would put him high on the list. So give him a follow.

00:27:48.880 So there's a, are y'all following the story of the transgender weightlifter? So there's a,

00:27:58.040 apparently a transgender who has, is competing in the women's event. Somebody who was allegedly born

00:28:08.480 with a male genetic material, I guess. I'm not sure what the right way to say it is these days.

00:28:13.980 But I, of course, have a completely different opinion than almost all of you. I think almost

00:28:21.720 all of you say, that's not fair, because he's taking a spot from a woman. But here's my take

00:28:27.500 on sports in general. Sports are mostly about rewarding people who are lucky. That's it. Sports

00:28:35.920 are about rewarding people who are lucky, but making it look like it's something else.

00:28:41.840 Because you have to be lucky to have exactly the right kind of genetic gifts to be a good athlete.

00:28:48.600 I didn't get them. Right? I mean, I'm a good weekend athlete. Like I could play tennis better than,

00:28:55.100 you know, most people who play tennis. But I don't have any kind of genetic gifts that would make me

00:28:59.920 a, like a, like a Malcolm Flex, for example. I don't have anything like that. So where's,

00:29:05.900 where's my fairness? Right? It's not, it's not about hard work. It's about some people are born

00:29:12.840 with genetic gifts. But one of those gifts is their ability to work hard and stick to something

00:29:19.000 and focus. That's a genetic gift. You don't really learn that. Right? But then on top of that,

00:29:25.840 you got to be born in the right place in the right time. You've got to have the right mentors. And

00:29:30.240 you've got to, you know, not be hit by lightning is basically luck, which we dress up as skill.

00:29:36.780 So we can all feel that if we were, you know, tried a little harder, we could do well too.

00:29:43.020 Yeah. And the comment was, everything's about rewarding lucky people. On some level, that's true.

00:29:49.260 But I would argue that in the non-sports realm, if you have a systems versus goals approach,

00:29:56.180 and if you have a talent stack that you're building, your odds of success are basically

00:30:01.960 really good, really good. And that doesn't require luck. Well, except the luck that you're exposed to

00:30:07.820 the idea. I suppose that would be luck. So yes, ultimately luck is going to drive a lot of these

00:30:13.120 things. But the reason that we enjoy watching sports is just that we don't know how it's going

00:30:17.620 to come out. And we imagine that there's some kind of, you know, grit and intangible stuff that's

00:30:22.980 driving things. And that makes it fun. But I would say the story about this transgender weightlifter,

00:30:31.780 it's not so much a story about him having a dick. It's more of a story about him being a dick,

00:30:38.340 isn't it? Because at the moment, you know, he's taking advantage, she's taking advantage of a loophole

00:30:45.540 that is sort of a dick move, really, is a sort of a dick thing to do. So I wish this young lady

00:30:55.160 well in the Olympics, if only because it will maybe teach us that the Olympics are bullshit to begin

00:31:01.960 with, and that we shouldn't even have Olympics. Olympics made sense in a pre-internet age, you know,

00:31:09.060 some reason to interact with other countries and, you know, make it a friendly competition and stuff.

00:31:13.960 It doesn't make any sense in 2021. If you want to have a good competition, and you want people to

00:31:21.680 observe it and watch it and entertain it, just put the same quality of athletes on the same teams

00:31:28.000 and forget about the gender. You know, if you're good enough to play on this team, it doesn't matter

00:31:33.220 what gender you are. And just make sports organized by level of skill. In other words, exactly like

00:31:40.760 intramural sports are already organized. If you're familiar with any kind of intramural sports,

00:31:47.000 they just divide it by skill level. Now, they usually also divide it by gender, but not always.

00:31:53.460 Not always. As long as everybody's the right skill range, you can mix the genders and everybody's

00:31:58.960 fine with it. The, you know, exceptions would be weightlifting and wrestling and boxing and stuff.

00:32:05.080 And I think those are special cases where you just have to protect people from, from getting hurt too

00:32:09.820 badly. All right. Um, I believe I have gotten myself canceled here by accidentally using the wrong

00:32:16.860 terms, which, uh, I never do intentionally. So intention has to matter for something.

00:32:23.420 All right. This is an incredibly stupid take. Oh, we'll come back here. Says Maple Bob. Oh,

00:32:31.960 it's Maple Bob. Uh, you can ignore, ignore that. The, the people who just say, this is a

00:32:37.140 incredibly stupid take. Which part of that didn't you like? Did you not like the part where sports

00:32:43.540 should be competitions among people who are relatively closely matched? Was that your problem?

00:32:51.100 I don't know what your problem was. Um, most men would be able to go pro with co-ed. Well,

00:32:59.040 why does anybody need to be pro? Right? Why does anybody need to be pro? Uh, if it's fun to watch,

00:33:06.360 that's good enough. You know, I'll tell you that I've enjoyed watching, let's say, uh, women's tennis

00:33:12.540 more than men's. So, you know, and you could argue that they don't play at the same level as the men in

00:33:18.560 tennis, which is true, but I like it better. So from an entertainment perspective, as long as the

00:33:24.620 teams are matched, it's great. Um, some of you are old enough to remember Billie Jean King playing Bobby

00:33:30.800 Riggs, the so-called, uh, battle of the sexes back in the seventies, I think. And, uh, Bobby Riggs was

00:33:39.360 older in his sixties, I think. And, um, Billie Jean King was closer to her prime and they played and

00:33:47.100 Billie Jean King beat him. And it was great entertainment. It was fun to watch. It didn't

00:33:51.900 matter that they were different genders. It just mattered that it was a good match. So, uh, that's

00:33:58.360 all I have to say about that. Now, I know that you hate it when I talk about this topic and masks and

00:34:04.900 vaccinations. And so I'll try to keep it only to, uh, the persuasion element of it and how we think

00:34:12.800 about it. Whether you wear a mask or not, or vaccinated or not, it's not my call. Those are

00:34:19.760 personal decisions and I don't try to influence you on that. Um, masks did not work during the

00:34:29.660 Spanish flu. Some people say, we don't know what worked during the Spanish flu. Nobody knows any of

00:34:35.260 that. And anything you, anything you say about the Spanish flu is not likely to be right. We just

00:34:43.780 don't, we don't even know why it went away. Do you know that nobody knows why the Spanish flu went away

00:34:51.100 because it wasn't like, uh, it doesn't look like it was herd immunity, just sort of went away. And if

00:34:58.120 we don't understand that, we don't understand anything. Did you see a, uh, uh, a study that said

00:35:04.660 that, um, I think it was drug addiction and depression were both related to, um, vitamin D

00:35:12.760 doesn't mean there's a causation there, but there's a strong correlation, which is definitely, uh, makes

00:35:19.680 you wonder. And I feel as if we might be on some kind of a, a path in which we learned that vitamin D

00:35:28.920 fixes a whole bunch of stuff, way more than we suspected. So that's, that's just speculation,

00:35:35.900 but it feels like that's where it's heading. Um,

00:35:42.080 this, the Spanish flu didn't come from Spain. Somebody says, well, maybe don't know about that.

00:35:51.440 All right. That is all I have for you today. Um, I'm just looking at your comments for a minute.

00:35:58.920 Yes. Being in the sunshine fixes a lot of stuff. I can tell you that my, uh, my frame of mind and

00:36:06.880 my mood are completely dependent on exercise. And if I exercise outdoors, let's say taking a walk

00:36:14.900 in the daytime, I feel better. I always feel better after spending some time in the sun.

00:36:22.780 I don't think there's ever been an exception to that.

00:36:24.720 All right. That's all I got for now. Let me give you one more view of the street.

00:36:36.280 See it all happening there. Uh, let's see how many people are wearing masks walking all alone today.

00:36:42.620 All right. So there's a mask. There's a mask. There's a, there's a mask pulled down.

00:36:54.580 Well, there you have it. All right. Um, that's it for today. I'll talk to you.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - June 21, 2021

Episode 1413 Scott Adams： And Now For the Best Simultaneous Sip in the World!

Episode Stats

Length

Words per Minute

Word Count

Sentence Count

Misogynist Sentences

Hate Speech Sentences

Summary

Transcript