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 1.00

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 0.98

00:02:29.440 that you put your dirty golf ball in and crank it and it literally washes your balls. 0.96

00:02:35.940 So think back to the joke. Much better now, isn't it? Now that you have that context. 0.99

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 1.00

00:23:14.920 assholes based on their color. Let me say that again. It teaches your kids that they can only be 1.00

00:23:23.720 one of two things, losers or assholes. Now, that's just true. Meaning that when you hear it, 1.00

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 0.98

00:23:46.760 a disadvantage that you're going to be, relatively speaking, a loser in life. And that's your fate. 0.98

00:23:54.840 You're sort of locked into a racial limit on your abilities. So that would be a loser. 0.99

00:24:03.060 Maybe still winning, but not winning as much as, let's say, white people in this model of things. 1.00

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, 0.99

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 1.00

00:24:32.980 acting like you deserved it. It's kind of a jerk, right? Now, the simplification is what makes this 1.00

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 1.00

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, 1.00

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, 1.00

00:30:38.340 isn't it? Because at the moment, you know, he's taking advantage, she's taking advantage of a loophole 0.99

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 0.96

00:30:55.160 well in the Olympics, if only because it will maybe teach us that the Olympics are bullshit to begin 0.97

00:31:01.960 with, and that we shouldn't even have Olympics. Olympics made sense in a pre-internet age, you know, 0.94

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 0.92

00:31:33.220 what gender you are. And just make sports organized by level of skill. In other words, exactly like 0.87

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, 1.00

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 1.00

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

Summary

Transcript