Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1580 Scott Adams： The News Is Full of Wonderful Craziness Today. Come Enjoy it

00:00:00.000 Good morning, everybody, and welcome to just about the best time you've ever had in your life,

00:00:10.020 and it's just going to get better. I hate to say this is the highlight of your whole life,

00:00:15.080 but it's the highlight so far. It could get better. I think it might. Audio is good. Video

00:00:22.200 is good. My goodness, what a wonderful start to the day. Is anybody exercising? Because

00:00:29.780 exercising to the news is the best thing ever. In fact, I like to exercise in the afternoon when

00:00:36.340 I'm watching a show called The Five on Fox. I call it exer-fiving. That's right. I don't know if

00:00:44.380 there's a clever way to exercise to this, but if you can come up with a clever name like exer-fiving,

00:00:51.660 let me know. All right. If you'd like to take it up a level, and I know you do, you're that kind

00:00:58.000 of people. Would you settle? Would you settle for a mildly interesting live stream? No. No,

00:01:06.100 you're not that kind of people. You are smarter and sexier than the average person, and you want 0.70

00:01:11.080 to have it all. And if you want to have it all, all you need is a cup or mug or a glass, a tanker,

00:01:15.620 chalice or stein, a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid. I like

00:01:23.640 coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled, unparalleled, unparalleled pleasure. It's called

00:01:31.940 the simultaneous sip. It's famous around the world. It's going to happen to you right now

00:01:36.420 if you're prepared. Get ready. Go.

00:01:42.840 Ah, that was good because it was totally the first simultaneous sip I've taken today.

00:01:48.340 All right. Fake news. Let's do the fake news first. Fake news alert. There's some fake news about

00:02:03.060 the order of the timeline of Trump getting COVID. And the fake news is saying that he tested positive

00:02:12.060 positive and then went and interacted with a bunch of people. I'm summarizing a detailed,

00:02:17.400 boring story. Do you think that's true? Did he test positive and then go interact with a bunch of

00:02:24.500 people? Sort of true. Here's the part that they left out. The first test that was positive was a low

00:02:35.520 grade test. So they used a higher quality test and he tested negative. And then he interacted with

00:02:43.280 people. So is it true that he tested positive and then soon after went and interacted with people?

00:02:51.360 It's true. It's also true that he immediately tested negative right after he tested positive.

00:02:57.500 So it's just fake news. Well, it's fake news in the sense that they left out a really important point

00:03:03.840 that he had tested negative. Now, I'm not going to defend anything he did or didn't do. I'll just make

00:03:10.540 that very specific point that the news is fake about this story. Well, Alec Baldwin interestingly claims

00:03:23.360 that he did not pull the trigger on the set of Rust in the round that killed his cinematographer

00:03:30.900 and wounded the director. Apparently, the trigger pulled itself or the gun just fired itself.

00:03:39.220 Now, huh. I'm no public relations expert. But here's how I would have played that.

00:03:50.760 The moment Alec Baldwin said, you know, I didn't even pull the trigger. I feel like I would have told

00:03:56.900 the public that little tidbit right away. Right away. Doesn't that feel important? I didn't pull the

00:04:06.100 trigger. Now, who knows if that's true or false. But it's pretty important to note it. Why are we just

00:04:14.980 finding that out now? Really? You don't think there was one other person who already knew that he said he

00:04:23.940 didn't pull the trigger. There was nobody on the set who was a witness to him saying, my God, I didn't

00:04:29.540 even pull the trigger. Something a little bit wrong with this story, isn't there? Who waits? How long have

00:04:36.820 we waited since the event itself? How many weeks has it been? Has it been a month? A month? So there's

00:04:45.380 something wrong with that story. And I believe it might be yet another sign of a poltergeist

00:04:51.460 invasion. So, so far, according to CNN, the following things have happened recently. An SUV drove itself

00:04:58.360 into a crowd of people. A rock hurled itself and hurt somebody. And now, quite alarmingly, a trigger of a

00:05:07.220 gun has pulled itself. So, that's not the worst of it. It's possible that a portal to hell has been

00:05:15.620 opened and poltergeists are running the show right now. But it's even worse than that. We're actually

00:05:21.720 having crimes now featuring criminals. And I know this is weird, but featuring criminals who don't have

00:05:31.980 an ethnicity. Now, that's new. In the past, people always had an ethnicity. So, I assume this is more

00:05:40.180 of the portal from hell situation where maybe some demons are coming through who have no ethnicity

00:05:45.460 because the reporting is now making sure it doesn't tell us. So, just keep an eye out for the

00:05:52.620 poltergeist. Had an interesting back and forth with a professional statistician, I believe,

00:06:00.820 Joe Shipman. And we were talking about making decisions in the face of incomplete data. And I

00:06:08.600 was calling that guessing. That if you're making a decision with incomplete data, that you're

00:06:15.920 guessing. And he pushed back on that and said, no, you know, in the real world, I'm paraphrasing a

00:06:20.800 little bit, but in the real world, you never have, you know, perfect data, but you can still make pretty

00:06:26.620 good decisions if you do the right kind of analysis. And I'll give you his argument and then

00:06:32.000 I'm going to counter it. He said, some of us need to make the best of the information we have

00:06:35.980 using as scientific a process as we can. Because decisions can't be avoided. I agree, you have to

00:06:43.100 make a decision sometimes. Part of the process is identifying one's assumptions and biases to the

00:06:49.180 extent possible. It's not a perfect process, but it merits recognition. Okay, so far. And he said,

00:06:57.980 it's imprecise to call it guessing, because that's what I did. I called it guessing. Specifically,

00:07:03.580 the topic was guessing if you made the right decision about the vaccination. But he's talking

00:07:08.820 more generically here. Because there is a whole science of decision making under uncertainty.

00:07:13.340 Correct. There is a process for decision making under uncertainty. Where you take into account

00:07:20.080 multiple possible outcomes. Correct. Monte Carlo simulation, etc. One of the good ways to do that

00:07:26.460 is you run all the possibilities and you see if there's any possibility that's bad. Because it could

00:07:33.280 be that every combination of variables, you end up either, you know, positive or very positive or

00:07:39.880 negative or very negative. So it'd be good to know if no matter what you do, you end up positive or

00:07:45.120 negative. So yeah, that's definitely a process. I've used that process professionally. And he says,

00:07:53.720 guessing has the connotation of identifying the most likely outcome and acting as if it is the only one.

00:07:59.840 Well, no. I mean, I don't accept that definition of guessing, but that's not important. And he says,

00:08:06.580 I won't allow any characterization of what I've said as, quote, guessing. The difference, he says,

00:08:14.480 and then he makes a good case for his own track record of using his own technique. He said, with

00:08:19.640 COVID, Russiagate, and many other recent controversies, not only have I been shown to be

00:08:25.100 right, I have been right for the right reasons. Which is actually a good comment. If you write for the

00:08:31.460 right reasons as opposed to coincidentally right, that does mean something. And if your arguments hold up,

00:08:37.680 you get credit. I agree with that. But here's my counter to it, okay?

00:08:48.660 Let's take Russiagate. How hard was it to know that that was bullshit? I think a lot of people just 0.99

00:08:56.100 said, oh, Democrats in the news, they're all liars all the time, so it's not real. And then it turned out 0.95

00:09:04.500 you were right. How many people did that? They just said, well, it's coming from people who lie all the

00:09:11.160 time about everything. So I'll say this is a lie, too. And then it turned out you were right. Was it because

00:09:18.520 you did a Monte Carlo simulation with all of the variables? Nope. Nope. Sometimes you just need one

00:09:26.780 variable. But I give you this caution. There is nothing more dangerous than being right about

00:09:34.860 something big. If you want to completely destroy a human brain, one way to do it is to be coincidentally

00:09:44.300 right about something big. Because you know what happens, right? You get cocky. And then you're

00:09:51.220 pretty sure you can peer into the, you know, complex soup of variables and get the right answer next

00:09:59.060 time. Because you did it the last time. You can do it again. You were right on that Russiagate thing,

00:10:05.880 so you're going to be right on this vaccination thing, right? You got a track record now. Now,

00:10:10.660 if it were just one thing, that would be less convincing. And as Joe Shipman points out,

00:10:18.960 he's been right on a number of things. And by the way, this is exactly the process I recommend.

00:10:23.560 You should look at the things that you predicted, write them down or say them in public so you can

00:10:29.360 be held to it, and then see how well he did. Now, Joe says that he's been tracking his own predictions,

00:10:36.400 and they've been more right than wrong. That's my interpretation. And so he thinks that his

00:10:43.140 process is good. What do you think? Well, he might just be a smart person who knows, you know, BS when

00:10:52.180 he sees it. Could be that. And it's also pretty easy to just guess that people are lying about stuff

00:10:59.180 because it seems like lately they almost always are. It's just a pretty easy guess. Now,

00:11:05.480 take my situation with predicting that Trump would win in 2016. By my own description,

00:11:17.920 should I now be ruined because I got one right? Well, it depends if it was a guess. In my case,

00:11:27.160 well, I thought I could see something that other people couldn't see, which is he had the most

00:11:32.160 incredible persuasion talent stack I'd ever seen. And I just happened to have a skill set that allowed

00:11:39.100 me to see that before other people could see it. Now, I would say that at this point, even the

00:11:44.500 Democrats say he's the most persuasive person in politics. They just don't like which way he's

00:11:49.540 persuading. And I think the Republicans would agree he's the most persuasive person that's

00:11:54.380 happened lately. So that was a case where I could simply see a variable that was invisible to other

00:12:00.040 people. And it was the biggest variable, in my opinion. It was the biggest one. So that was really

00:12:05.800 a very, very special case. And I tell myself that so I don't get cocky. I tell myself that I only got

00:12:13.820 that right because of the weird, weird coincidence that my talent stack was exactly the right stack

00:12:20.880 to see a thing that was invisible to other people. How often does that happen? Right? I can't think

00:12:27.600 of another time. Really? Well, actually, I can think of one other time. If it turns out I'm right

00:12:33.940 about there's no sonic weapon that's causing this Havana thing, there might be something causing it,

00:12:40.920 but I don't think it's a sonic weapon. I would say that, too, is exactly in my skill stack.

00:12:47.700 So I can simply see things that people can't see because of a specific kind of training.

00:12:53.120 Now, I would say if I get those right, those probably don't break my brain. Because, as Joe said,

00:13:01.100 I would have gotten them right for the right reasons. But I will say this. If you're saying to

00:13:07.440 yourself, I'm looking into a complicated situation where I don't have a special insight,

00:13:12.540 which is most things, right? Most things you don't have a special insight. If you're looking

00:13:18.140 at all these variables swimming around and then you say to yourself, all right, I believe this one,

00:13:23.000 not this one, I feel less closer to guessing. To me, I'm going to stick with my characterization of

00:13:31.720 that as guessing. Because I think that unless you have a special insight, like I just described,

00:13:40.260 you don't know which variables you've made correct assumptions about. So your assumptions will

00:13:46.460 determine your outcome. It's not really the analysis itself. All right, so it's easy to imagine

00:13:51.600 that the analysis gave you the answer when really it was just your assumptions, and that was guessing.

00:13:55.960 So you have guesses in your analysis, and I don't know how anything but a guess could come out the

00:14:02.240 other end. But I will take where I usually go hard at my critics, or even just people who disagree

00:14:10.060 with me, I'm going to say that Joe Shipman has some really good points here about how there are times

00:14:16.340 that you can do better than, I think, chance if you've got some special skills on analysis, which he does.

00:14:25.960 So I would guess he probably does do better than chance. But if you get one right, by pure luck,

00:14:35.560 you're broken from that point on. You'll always think that you can do that, and you just can't. It

00:14:41.860 was luck. And especially bad with elections. Because if you get an election and there are two people in

00:14:48.840 the running, about half of the country is going to think they guessed right. And then they'll think

00:14:56.120 they can do it again. If all they're doing is looking at all the variables, again, which is

00:15:03.040 different from my specific case where I had an extra vision on something, which is rare.

00:15:09.320 All right, I'm going to call out Tulsi Gabbard for having a good strategy for becoming president

00:15:20.820 without looking like she's trying. And it goes like this. Correct me if I'm wrong, so check my

00:15:29.080 assumptions as I go. Would you agree that Tulsi Gabbard stands out as someone who is willing to say that

00:15:35.420 the people on the other side of the political aisle do not necessarily suck? Is anybody else saying 0.82

00:15:43.900 that? Give me giving the name of one other person who is willing to say, you know, not in direct

00:15:51.420 words, but in lots of different ways, that the people on the other side might not be pieces of shit. 0.99

00:15:57.300 There's nobody else, right? Manchin. Okay, Manchin. But I think Manchin is really talking about himself 1.00

00:16:04.380 when he does that. I think Manchin is, you know, maybe a little bit talking about himself because

00:16:10.020 he agrees with them. It's different if you agree with them. But saying that somebody is not a piece

00:16:16.420 of shit if you completely disagree with them is actually kind of rare. Now, so far in our highly, 0.99

00:16:22.900 highly divided world, is Tulsi Gabbard getting any traction? Not much. Not much. Because we're not ready

00:16:32.180 for it, are we? We're not really, we're kind of committed to the divisiveness at the point, at this

00:16:39.060 point, because it gives us a dopamine hit. But just like Bernie Sanders turned down to be somewhat

00:16:46.580 brilliant by being consistent for decades, until his time came. So the world changed until it matched

00:16:53.700 Bernie, or very close. And although he didn't win the presidency, he made a big impact.

00:16:59.940 So sometimes just hanging around with a strategy that nobody else has, at least at a high level,

00:17:07.700 suddenly, you know, the situation in the world could change to people saying, you know,

00:17:13.140 I'm just so done with the divisiveness. Is there anybody who won't give me that?

00:17:18.500 And she'll be the only one. There won't be any other choice. There's no other choice.

00:17:24.580 Let me tell you how a smart Democrat could become president easily. Easily. Now,

00:17:32.980 I've told you that I think Republicans will sweep things if they stay the same. But they won't.

00:17:38.740 And the Mississippi abortion case that the Supreme Court is looking at, that would, in my opinion,

00:17:46.980 would change the entire calculation. So if abortion gets banned or cut back in any major way by the

00:17:53.700 Supreme Court, Democrats are going to come out like crazy. Let me ask you in the comments, and no cheating, 0.97

00:18:00.900 don't do any cheating. Don't look this up. This has to be off the top of your head. No Googling, okay?

00:18:08.900 First, just first thought. What percentage of Americans want the abortion question to be

00:18:16.820 just a personal decision between them and their doctor? What percentage of Americans

00:18:21.700 want it to be a legal abortion between them and their doctor? I'm going to read off your numbers. 45,

00:18:31.380 65, 65, 80, 80, 90, 75, 51, 25, 53. Over here, you've got 70s, 40s, 25s, 20, 75s. Look how different your

00:18:43.860 numbers are. There are people saying 25% and people saying 90%. You're not in the same world.

00:18:54.900 It's like you don't live in the same planet. I could see if, you know, if the number was 70,

00:19:00.100 but you guessed 80 or 60, you know, you're in the ballpark. But the real number is 75.

00:19:05.860 75. I didn't even know that until this morning. I thought it was closer to like 60%, if I would have

00:19:12.900 guessed. But 75% of people in a recent poll said that they want to keep it between their doctor and

00:19:22.260 the woman. Can you trust the polling? Well, at 75%, you can, yes. Because that means that no matter 0.99

00:19:30.180 what is well over 50%. Yeah. At 75%, I would say, yeah, a clear majority wants this. Now, we don't

00:19:38.500 live in a country where the majority necessarily gets what they want on every single question.

00:19:43.380 Our system doesn't always give them what they want. But I would think that if the Supreme Court

00:19:48.740 goes the other way, the Republicans will have found a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

00:19:55.140 As it stands now, I think a generic Republican could destroy any generic Democrat. Would you agree?

00:20:04.820 How many would agree with that basic statement? I mean, I say it as an absolute, but you know,

00:20:09.300 I don't mean it that way. At the moment, there's a gigantic advantage to be a Republican in any

00:20:16.260 upcoming election, I would say. Right? But the Republicans, at least in Mississippi,

00:20:23.380 found a way to maybe reverse all of that. Because the abortion thing will get people on the streets. 1.00

00:20:30.420 If it goes, yeah, if it goes the way it looks like it's going to go. So I think the Republicans may

00:20:35.780 have given up almost their entire advantage through the, if the Supreme Court guts Roe versus Wade. I don't

00:20:42.980 know that they will, a good chance of it. But here's, anyway, getting back to the Tulsi Gabbard strategy,

00:20:51.860 let me tell you how a Democrat could become president easily. I'll just give you the strategy.

00:20:59.780 All right? I'll tell you the strategy, and they'll say, just easily, they could become president. It goes like this.

00:21:05.540 All you have to do is say you really like the people who disagree with you, the Republicans,

00:21:12.660 the conservatives, and spend some time with them, you know, so that it's real. You're actually,

00:21:19.380 you know, laughing with them. You're spending some time. You're inviting them into the White House.

00:21:23.460 If you're, if you're there, even on your campaign, you're meeting with bunches of people on the other

00:21:28.900 side. Who's done that? Nobody. Like, nobody's done that. And it would be easy. How hard would it be to

00:21:36.180 say that you like citizens of the United States if you're running for president? The easiest thing in

00:21:41.940 the world? I've not, I've never seen it done. It would be the easiest thing. So first, say that you

00:21:49.300 respect them, and you genuinely like the other side. Big deal. Easiest thing in the world. Nobody's

00:21:57.060 ever done it. Number two, on every topic, fully explain the other side's view. Who does that?

00:22:08.260 Absolutely nobody. Absolutely nobody. Nobody's ever done that. And it's easy. And it's useful. And

00:22:17.860 nobody would be opposed to it. Nobody would be opposed to that. Now, actually, that's, that's

00:22:24.580 an exaggeration, too, because trolls are opposed to everything. But if you just said, I really like,

00:22:30.340 let me just say, imagine you're a Democrat, you're running for president, and I'll just model what I

00:22:36.740 would say. You know, on this abortion question, it's really divisive. But I got to say, the Republican

00:22:43.200 view, now I'm just modeling a Democrat, this is not my personal view. There are no personal views

00:22:48.400 in what I'm going to say. I'm just telling you how you would win. And say, you know, the, I really,

00:22:53.660 really respect the Republican view about banning abortion. Because their instinct is exactly right. 0.98

00:23:02.180 Their instinct is to protect life in the extreme. To really, to really make that a top priority.

00:23:10.340 And, you know, I have to admit, from a moral perspective, that is a very, very strong and

00:23:17.400 respectable opinion. However, we also live in a world where we have to make tough, tough choices.

00:23:25.480 And sometimes the question is not what the choice is, but who makes it? Who makes the choice?

00:23:31.920 And freedom is a pretty big deal in this country. And sometimes you're going to be comparing freedom

00:23:39.380 to life itself. These are the biggest questions that anybody could ever make.

00:23:45.740 And so, as president, your president, I'll give you this promise, that I will be as uninvolved

00:23:53.720 in your personal decisions as I possibly can be. Because I think that our system does favor

00:24:01.320 personal freedom, even over life. We do it when we go to war. We value freedom over life itself.

00:24:10.100 It's a consistent thing we've done in this country. And let me tell you, I fully appreciate

00:24:15.160 the Republican view. And I think it's important. There should be somebody fighting for life in this

00:24:21.780 country all the time. Somebody should be fighting for life. But it would be a very useful, useful

00:24:30.720 conversation to be adults and know that sometimes freedom itself is the alternative. Sometimes life

00:24:41.520 is the most important variable, sometimes freedom. And as your president, I'm not going to make that

00:24:47.740 decision for you. I'm going to support the majority of the country. And I'm going to support the Supreme

00:24:53.020 Court when they make that decision. But you need to decide about freedom versus possibly life itself.

00:25:02.360 And I will respect both sides of this, but I'm not going to get into it, because I think this is best

00:25:07.960 served at the lowest, most local level.

00:25:14.300 So, now, you know, I picked the most controversial topic, because, you know, it's the hardest one,

00:25:22.700 right? So if I could make that work, then you could see how this would work for everything.

00:25:27.240 You could take every topic and do the same thing. You could say, here's your argument.

00:25:32.180 Here's the other side. They're both pretty good arguments. They're both pretty good arguments from

00:25:39.460 people who really care about the country. But somebody has to make a decision. Somebody has to

00:25:46.440 make a decision between two absolutely honest, good arguments. And I'm going to do that for you.

00:25:54.240 I know that half of you are going to hate me, but I think you appreciate the process. Sometimes we

00:26:00.140 have to hold the process up, the system, the republic, the constitution. Sometimes that has to

00:26:06.980 just be the winner. And we don't always get our way. But we've bought into a system in which we agree

00:26:12.940 that sometimes we don't get our way. We do trust the system. So I'm going to make sure that the system

00:26:18.580 works for you. I can't guarantee you're going to get what you want, every one of you. And don't ask me for

00:26:24.240 that. That's not practical. Take that answer and compare it to everything that any politician has

00:26:32.880 ever said. It's easy to be president. It's easy. The steps for just walking into the office are just

00:26:44.320 trivial. I just did it. I just modeled it. Now, if I wanted to be president and didn't have a background

00:26:52.080 that would be making it impossible for me to ever run for public office, I could easily be president.

00:27:01.900 I just modeled it. I could walk into the job. And anybody could. Anybody would just have to use

00:27:07.260 the technique. It's not about me. It's about whether you understand how to persuade.

00:27:12.360 Now, I would say that that's Trump's biggest weakness. In some ways, he was the perfect candidate

00:27:22.180 for a highly divisive world because, you know, he was sort of a champion for a team and he was good

00:27:28.540 at it. But I think if he came back for a second term and said, you know, I'm just going to show more

00:27:35.120 respect to the other side. I'm not going to change any of my opinions. But I'd like you to know that I

00:27:41.220 respect your opinions and just and just do that. Is there anything that would keep him out of the

00:27:47.980 office? Nope. Imagine if Trump had said about kids in cages. My God, kids in cages is terrible. 0.86

00:27:58.160 It was terrible when Obama did it. It's terrible when we did it. Can somebody help me fix this?

00:28:02.860 I call on the people of the United States to help. If somebody's got an idea how to make this go away

00:28:12.000 while still keeping our national priorities. Because we have to keep a national priority,

00:28:16.440 which is a good border. And then I would say, you're arguing about the wrong thing with the border.

00:28:22.880 You're arguing whether it should be open or closed. That's the wrong question.

00:28:26.980 You should be talking about having a system that you could open it and close it on demand

00:28:32.400 based on some logical or reasonable criterion. And that's what I'll give you.

00:28:39.740 We'll have a strong border, but how much is open or closed is a completely separate decision.

00:28:45.880 And I'll tell you how we make it. I'll show you the whole process. We'll weigh the risks of,

00:28:51.740 you know, crime or maybe COVID at the moment against the economic benefits. I'll tell you

00:28:56.940 what the economists say. I'll lay it out for you. I'll even tell you if it's good for your income

00:29:01.880 zone. It might be good for rich people to let in more immigrants because they get cheap labor. 1.00

00:29:08.180 I'll just say that. If you're rich, this is pretty good to let in lots of immigrants.

00:29:13.200 If you're in the lower income level, it might be bad for you because now you're competing against

00:29:18.580 more people. So I'm just going to tell you exactly what's good for you and what's bad.

00:29:23.780 And then I'm going to tell you what the decision is. And some of you won't like it.

00:29:30.040 All right. It would be easy to be president. And I think Tulsi Gabbard is the closest

00:29:35.860 to what I just described. Maybe, you know, naturally by temperament, I would just be guessing on that.

00:29:42.720 Um, but strategy wise, she, she's a real dark horse because, uh, she could just sort of wait 1.00

00:29:51.400 because she's young, just sort of wait. And maybe in, you know, 15 years, it's exactly what we need.

00:30:00.040 We, we just might be so sick of the, you know, the two teams that we just say, just,

00:30:05.000 let's just try something else. Can we all just, just try something else? And she would be the only

00:30:10.420 alternative. There you go. All right. Germany's putting restrictions on the unvaccinated. So if 0.60

00:30:16.780 you're unvaccinated, you, I don't know, can't go places. And again, I would like to point out 1.00

00:30:25.180 that, well, you know, let me, let me back up a little bit. Yeah. You've, you've heard a lot of

00:30:31.660 Republicans especially talk about American exceptionalism. How many of you buy into that

00:30:38.160 American exceptionalism? Like there's, there's something magical or special about America?

00:30:44.340 Most of you, right? Most of the people watching this do because a lot of you learn leaning right.

00:30:50.580 Yeah. A lot of you. What does it mean to you? Can you define it? Exceptional in what specific way?

00:30:58.800 Yeah. If you're just saying we're better, blah, blah, blah, that's, that's bullshit. 1.00

00:31:01.440 But freedom of speech? Well, other places have some freedom of speech. Absolutely. What makes us 0.98

00:31:08.060 better? Guns? No, I don't know. Rule of law? But those, those are systems. Does that make us

00:31:18.540 exceptional? Or the, just the system is exceptional? I don't know. I never bought into the American 0.99

00:31:25.100 exceptionalism. That seemed a little bit, I don't know, it seemed a little, going a little bit too far.

00:31:31.960 Definitely we were successful. You know, if you said America is, you know, one of the most or the

00:31:37.960 most successful country of all time, I don't know, could you back that up? Maybe. I'd be okay with that.

00:31:45.560 But there's something about the exceptionalism part that bothers me. Until I saw this story about

00:31:50.720 Germany putting restrictions on the unvaccinated. That shit isn't going to happen here. 1.00

00:31:58.460 Let me tell you, I'd never felt like we were exceptional until I saw this. Germany? Seriously, 1.00

00:32:08.940 Germany? Now, maybe we are exceptional because of our gun ownership. It does, it does change things.

00:32:15.560 Absolutely changes things. Because one of the things it does is it tells the public that they

00:32:20.020 know they're in charge. If the public didn't know they were in charge of the country,

00:32:24.780 they would act like they weren't. And then the government would be in charge. But because of

00:32:30.320 gun ownership, there's a very large population, or percentage of the population, that knows for

00:32:37.560 sure that the citizens run the country. Do they know that in Germany? Do the German citizens think

00:32:45.280 they run the country? Because we do. I sure do. I think we run the country. And I think our politicians

00:32:53.440 will do whatever the fuck we tell them to. Right? Now, the problem is, the people themselves 0.99

00:33:02.240 haven't decided. Right? When they decide by large enough numbers that they tell the government what

00:33:06.720 to do. And pretty much the government does it. The Supreme Court thing with abortion is sort of a

00:33:12.880 weird exception. Because it could be one of those things that goes way against the will of the

00:33:18.100 majority. It's possible. But we do allow that there could be special cases like that. That's why we

00:33:24.180 have a republic, right? For exactly that reason. I've never felt more exceptional than watching

00:33:34.160 Germany lock down the unvaccinated and watching Australia do the same thing. That's just not going

00:33:41.140 to happen here. It just isn't. And by the way, if you're leaning left, and you're wondering why it's

00:33:48.300 not going to happen here, it's because of the right. And you should actually be quite happy about

00:33:54.940 that. You might be against gun ownership for lots of reasons, and they might even sound pretty good. 1.00

00:34:00.620 But you have to appreciate there are some advantages. And, you know, the people who used

00:34:06.920 to say, I know the people on the left argue this. They say, what are your little handguns and even

00:34:13.080 your ARs? What are they going to do against the entire military of the United States? To which I say,

00:34:19.360 we're not going to be fighting any militaries. The military is going to join the people. Since when is

00:34:26.060 the military going to fight the citizens of the United States? No. No, they're on our side.

00:34:31.340 Again, it would depend on the topic, right? If it's a topic where, you know, 80% of the country is on

00:34:37.320 the same side, the military will be on that side too. Because it's a military of the people. So no,

00:34:45.020 we're not going to be fighting the military. The military will be extra guns on our side.

00:34:51.300 You don't think so? Depends on the topic, right? You could imagine a topic where it would be the

00:34:56.420 reverse. But in this lockdown stuff, no, no, the American military isn't going to make you stay

00:35:03.280 in your house. Let me say this as clearly as I possibly can. The American military, any form of

00:35:10.680 will never make you stay in your house if you're unvaccinated. That's not going to happen. And if

00:35:16.940 they try, you better be pretty happy that there are a lot of armed Americans. All right.

00:35:23.960 Here's something to scare the hell out of you. How many of you own Bitcoin?

00:35:31.640 Show me in the comments. Bitcoin owners weigh in. Probably quite a few of you. Yeah, seeing lots

00:35:40.440 of yeses, some nopes. But mostly the yeses, the ones who answer this question. Lots of Bitcoin. All

00:35:46.480 right. Now I will scare you to death. As you know, anything can be hacked. But the blockchain and 0.98

00:35:54.780 Bitcoin, it would be difficult. Very difficult to hack it. Would you agree? Very, very difficult to

00:36:01.000 hack it. Unless you had a quantum computer. Now the quantum computers have not yet reached the point

00:36:10.080 where they can hack your Bitcoin and simply take it from you, which by the way, is perfectly legal.

00:36:17.040 That's right. If somebody can hack your Bitcoin and take it from you, they can do it. There's no law

00:36:28.420 against it. I don't know why, but there isn't. And China is warning a professor, Jintao Ding, of

00:36:42.260 Tsinghua, that might be close to how you pronounce it, universally explained. And he said it isn't

00:36:51.960 against the law. But of course, he's Chinese, so maybe he's talking about it's not against the law

00:36:55.500 in China. Is it against the law in America? Maybe it's against the law somewhere. All right. I would

00:37:02.180 imagine it's against the law somewhere. But it doesn't matter if it's not against the law in China.

00:37:07.700 Well, there goes your money. Actually, it doesn't matter if it's against the law. It's going to

00:37:12.620 happen anyway. So here are two things you need to know about that. One, maybe. I'd want to get a

00:37:21.560 second opinion, though. Why would I want a second opinion on this? Anybody? Anybody? Why would I want

00:37:28.660 a second opinion on this? Because it's coming from China. Duh. And China doesn't love Bitcoin, do they?

00:37:40.800 Can you fact check me on that? China's anti-Bitcoin, am I right? Yeah, they hate it. 0.97

00:37:46.200 So here's a person from a university who is not afraid to say in public that Bitcoin might be a big,

00:37:52.780 big mistake to own it, which happens to coincide with exactly the opinion of the government of China

00:38:01.900 because they don't like Bitcoin. So, Scott, stop being silly. The blockchain would be forked. 0.98

00:38:13.240 The code would be upgraded and we move forward on the new chain. Are you saying that a forked and new

00:38:20.320 chain would then be invulnerable from a quantum computer attack? Is that what you're saying?

00:38:27.300 Clarify, please. Now, I do understand the basic concept that the good guys can stay ahead of the

00:38:35.520 bad guys. Apparently, there's already algorithms that can defend against a quantum attack or there's

00:38:43.760 already newer encryptions that can do that. So I'm not sure I believe this Chinese professor who's with

00:38:53.200 me. How much credibility would you give a Chinese professor who says this in public and coincidentally

00:39:00.000 it's good for the Chinese government? Low. But if I hear it from an American source who's also an

00:39:06.860 expert, I'd be pretty, pretty worried. Hearing it from a Chinese expert, 50% worried. 1.00

00:39:13.760 Hearing it from an American expert, let me tell you, if Naval tells me this is real,

00:39:21.780 I'm getting rid of all my Bitcoin the same day. I hate to put the pressure on you, Naval, but

00:39:28.240 I can't imagine there's anything he would hate to hear more than that because it would sound like

00:39:36.280 giving investment advice. So I apologize, Naval, to use your name in vain there. But honestly,

00:39:43.260 if Naval told me that quantum computers are going to hack my Bitcoin, I would cash that shit out so 0.99

00:39:49.620 fast. Anyway, somebody mentioned that Pete Buttigieg looks like the Grinch when he smiles. You know, 0.99

00:39:57.460 the Grinch has that smile. I can't do an impression of it. But, and then somebody else mentioned that

00:40:05.280 Kamala Harris reminds him of a hyena, which I get. And I'm just going to add, I've said this before,

00:40:12.020 but it's funny every time. Once you see somebody's animal, you know, like Mitch McConnell looks like a

00:40:18.240 turtle. The first time you see it, that's it. That's all you'll ever see. Once you see their animal, you're

00:40:26.760 going to see their animal every time. All right, my critics have been so beaten down by me lately that

00:40:33.740 they're starting to criticize me for imaginary future offenses. Seriously. The most frequent criticism I'm

00:40:42.760 getting lately is that in the future, I'm going to do something bad. And that in the future, I'm going

00:40:49.780 to lie about something. In the future, I'm going to have to do something to cover up something. To which

00:40:58.040 I say, have we totally run out of problems in the present? You've completely given up on things I'm

00:41:05.380 actually doing and have done? And really, all you have left is things that you literally

00:41:12.580 imagine I'll do in the future? That's not even a thought crime. That's a future thought crime.

00:41:20.740 Talk about giving up. Let me ask you something for those of you who follow me on Twitter, which is a

00:41:26.000 lot of you watching this. How many times have you seen me in a back and forth with one of my

00:41:32.400 critics, and then the last thing they say is word salad? How many of you seen me do that

00:41:40.140 repeatedly? I was doing it again this morning, producing some word salad. Now, you see in the

00:41:44.840 comments, if those of you who haven't seen it, I can tell you on the locals platform, it's just a

00:41:51.240 string of yeses. People have seen it. On probably YouTube, there are fewer people who follow me on

00:41:56.120 Twitter. Yeah. So people see it every day. And the reason I pointed out is that that's a tell for

00:42:02.300 cognitive dissonance. So when I trigger people into cognitive dissonance, which is essentially just

00:42:08.180 showing them that what they believed to be true was completely wrong, the word salad response is

00:42:15.200 just the tell. That's how you know that they're in it. And the reason I bring it up is that the more

00:42:20.920 often you see it, the easier it is to spot. It's a pattern recognition thing. You just have to train

00:42:27.700 yourself. And once you see your critic devolve into word salad, and usually the word salad is even not

00:42:33.700 exactly the same topic. It's like a related cousin point that they're trying to sell as their original

00:42:40.480 point sort of thing. Yeah. Get good at recognizing word salad because it's a good tell for cognitive

00:42:48.860 dissonance. And at that point, you know, there's no point in arguing. All right. I saw a new standard

00:42:56.100 for mental health today. Do you ever wonder if you have good mental health? Because what if you were crazy

00:43:02.700 and you were the only one who didn't know it, right? Because that's the problem with being crazy? 0.99

00:43:07.580 Other people can see it, but maybe you don't know it. Well, here's a new standard from Twitter user

00:43:13.900 OhTheFreemanity. He tweeted this. He said, Rachel Maddow just did a master class on the ethos of the

00:43:21.520 Republican Party in advance of tomorrow's SCOTUS oral arguments on abortion law in Mississippi.

00:43:27.140 She just broke down their entire raison d'etre. That's my French pronunciation there. In like 10 0.98

00:43:34.440 minutes. And then he gives us his standard. He says, I appreciate that she helps remind me I'm not

00:43:40.400 crazy. So his standard is that he, if his opinion matches up with a woman who's a known liar,

00:43:51.720 um, that he must be sane. So if his opinions agree with a known liar, he's, he's still good. So you

00:44:03.340 might want to adopt that standard. If you know somebody who's a pretty well documented to be

00:44:08.060 full of shit, if your opinions agree with that person who's a known liar and full of shit, uh, then 1.00

00:44:14.240 you're good. Your mental health. Perfect. Well, Simone Sanders, senior advisor and chief spokesperson for 1.00

00:44:23.360 vice president Harris. Uh, she's resigning. 1.00

00:44:29.860 Cat.

00:44:32.240 Roof. Huh.

00:44:35.300 Well, why did that take her so long? Because, uh, if you, if you are the senior advisor to

00:44:41.640 Kamala Harris, you're not looking good. I don't think your resume is benefited by being the advisor

00:44:50.160 to the worst advised person on the planet earth. Name one person that you would say, say, now we're

00:44:57.800 not there, so we don't know exactly who's saying what to whom, but can you think of any candidate

00:45:05.440 who would have worse advice, as far as you can tell, than Kamala Harris? I literally would call 0.99

00:45:14.940 her out as the worst advised politician of all time. Dan Quayle, maybe. But, but in recent times.

00:45:26.280 All right. Well, I think that's telling us that something's going to happen there with Kamala

00:45:31.280 Harris. And it's probably not good for Kamala Harris. Well, this school shooter, uh, I won't say

00:45:38.840 his name or even the school, uh, but he's being charged with terrorism as well as, you know, the

00:45:44.840 normal murderous type charges. And I said to myself, terrorism, what would justify a terrorism

00:45:53.500 charge? Now, the claim is that he terrorized the students who were not shot, that everybody will

00:46:01.580 have PTSD and they will be damaged for life. And they, I think that's true. They will have PTSD. They

00:46:07.740 will be damaged for life, even if they were not shot just by being there. But, uh, I looked at the law

00:46:14.600 for what terrorism is in the state, their state. And here's the, uh, part of the law that they're trying

00:46:22.660 to apply. See if you think this fits this school shooter who apparently had no political motives

00:46:28.680 that we know of, because apparently he talked about his intentions. So as far as we know,

00:46:34.060 no political motives of the shooter, but see if you think this applies. Quote, an act that is

00:46:40.800 intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence or affect the conduct of

00:46:47.760 government or a unit of government through intimidation or coercion. So part of this is

00:46:53.560 about intimidating the government. And there's no evidence of that that we're aware of. So that

00:46:58.040 probably doesn't apply. But the first part is an act that is intended to intimidate or coerce a

00:47:05.060 civilian population. Well, we don't see him trying to coerce anybody. So we'd have to back up all the

00:47:10.940 way to intimidate. So as an act that is intended to intimidate a civilian population, is there any

00:47:18.680 evidence that that was his intention? I'm not aware of any. So can we just say that he's being charged

00:47:28.480 with terrorism because he's a white and male? Is that fair? Do you think he'd be charged with

00:47:36.380 terrorism if he were black? No. No, he would not. No, he would not. But I think it's also fair to say 0.99

00:47:46.540 most of these mass shooters are white. Most of them. Not all. Not all. But haven't been a ton of 0.98

00:47:54.460 black mass shooters, have they, relatively speaking? Now, if it were by population, you know, it would be 0.95

00:48:00.180 13% of them. So you wouldn't expect a lot. Well, I think we should just call this racism because it

00:48:08.280 is, in my opinion. In my opinion, the only reason for this terrorism charge is that he's a white male. 0.83

00:48:16.760 Does anybody disagree with that, given that there's nothing about the terrorism law that seems to apply

00:48:22.380 to any information we've heard anyway? Calls for speculation. What about gang shootings?

00:48:35.020 Yeah, okay, that's a mass shooting. You're right. Yeah, yeah, if you count gang shootings, good point.

00:48:43.360 But those tend to be a little more spontaneous. No, actually, they're not. I guess a lot of them

00:48:47.340 are planned as well. They're just being race conscious, not racist. All right. Greg Kelly

00:49:00.600 on Twitter tweeted this. He complimented me first. And he said, is the normally brilliant Scott Adams

00:49:11.360 who's still enthralled with Secretary Pete, meaning Buttigieg, the lazy media whore fake veteran 0.99

00:49:18.340 who's shelling out, blah, blah, blah. And then he says some bad things about Secretary Pete Buttigieg. 0.98

00:49:24.980 Now, would you say that I'm enthralled with Pete Buttigieg? Does anybody think that's a good

00:49:32.240 characterization? Nope. No. I've simply said that his talent stack for evaluating infrastructure

00:49:41.940 decisions is exactly the right one. I don't say that he'll use those talents correctly.

00:49:48.700 I don't say that he won't politicize it. I don't say that he won't make any other mistake. How would I

00:49:54.340 know? But his talent stack is exactly on point for that very specific thing, because he was a consultant

00:50:01.580 for years, and that's what they did. Make that kind of priority decision-making stuff.

00:50:09.120 So here's my response. I'm not exactly enthralled. I think enthralled would be the wrong...

00:50:22.580 So not enthralled. But that's an example of binary thinking.

00:50:30.480 So the binaries, that I call them now, the binaries, can only see that there's a left opinion and a right

00:50:37.900 opinion. And any other opinion is invisible. It's actually invisible. You know, I said something

00:50:45.320 before that I know none of you exactly understood, unless you're actually a hypnotist yourself.

00:50:51.540 That a hypnotist can do something that's invisible to you.

00:50:54.380 It's because your framework or your mental framework doesn't include it. So if you just do things that

00:51:04.120 are outside of people's mental framework, it's actually just invisible. They think it's something

00:51:08.800 else. So the binary is that I'm either all left or all right, and I vigorously try to make sure that

00:51:17.900 that's not the case. And you seem to really like him during the primaries. Yeah, I did. That is true.

00:51:27.220 But enthralled? Am I hypnotized? I can't see any negative things? I've certainly also criticized him.

00:51:37.320 I'm pretty much not enthralled by anybody. People have pluses and minuses.

00:51:41.560 Somebody says, I was raised by hypnotists. My skills are untamed. I've known people who

00:51:50.360 were raised by hypnotists, and they do pick up the skill.

00:52:00.380 Scott, you do understand if they crack Bitcoin, your real money in your bank is also in trouble.

00:52:05.560 Probably so. Pete must thank God for Kamala Harris's existence every day.

00:52:19.760 All right. We see your false paradigms and strongman arguments. We just let you slide to avoid the

00:52:26.320 banhammer. Really? I'll ban that guy. I'll hide you. You are hidden. Anybody who watches me who

00:52:40.140 doesn't know that I'm going to ban you for generic criticism? Generic criticism will get you banned

00:52:50.040 every time. Specific criticism? All good. All good. You have a real point? I'd like to hear it.

00:52:56.320 All right. Fiji has reopened its borders, really. I've been to Fiji. It's pretty awesome.

00:53:10.520 And the Fed, yeah. Tulsi is a gun grabber, somebody says. Is Tulsi anti-gun? I don't think she's a...

00:53:21.620 My guess, without looking into it, is that she's in favor of some restrictions, but

00:53:28.180 yeah, she's ex-military. I can't believe she's anti-gun. 1.00

00:53:36.960 Scott doesn't understand the bird, which is the bald eagle.

00:53:45.620 Tulsi fixed her Second Amendment AR-15 statement. I would imagine she did. 0.68

00:53:51.620 All right.

00:53:58.080 Oh, somebody's predicting that Kamala Harris will be bought off.

00:54:07.180 What is a German supposed to do now? The public is completely brainwashed.

00:54:11.900 Well, good luck, Germany. You know, a lot of people believe that we're in the beginning

00:54:21.160 of some kind of a permanent state, and I completely disagree. There may be some things that linger

00:54:27.760 and become permanent, but we're not going to be in COVID lockdown forever.

00:54:32.140 All right. Has anybody heard about the COVID pill? Did that get approved by the FDA? I haven't heard.

00:54:42.940 What is my animal? You tell me.

00:54:46.900 Oh, a question on the abortion question. Again, I'm not going to give you my opinion on it,

00:54:52.900 because I just don't think it's useful to hear my opinion on abortion.

00:54:58.300 My opinion is that women should take care of it collectively and individually. 1.00

00:55:01.840 But, so 15 weeks. How many people would not know they're pregnant by 15 weeks?

00:55:13.140 In the comments? This is a serious question.

00:55:16.800 How common would it be to not know you're pregnant in 15 weeks?

00:55:23.300 Because I'm wondering how unreasonable it is to ask somebody to make a decision within 15 weeks.

00:55:33.180 Really, maybe within a month, because then that's the time you're sure.

00:55:41.900 You saw your daughter kick at 13 weeks?

00:55:45.760 You've seen a few people who didn't know until they went into labor.

00:55:49.860 But those people are missing periods at the very least, right?

00:55:54.260 You know, somebody's going to have to inform me better about female biology. 1.00

00:55:59.480 But how often do you not know you're pregnant?

00:56:03.500 Because you're missing your period more than once in a row, right?

00:56:07.200 You wouldn't test?

00:56:08.700 Would you not test for the women here? 0.97

00:56:11.480 Question for the women. 1.00

00:56:14.380 If you missed your period, would you test yourself for pregnancy?

00:56:18.620 And if you missed it twice in a row, would you test yourself for pregnancy?

00:56:23.300 You would, right?

00:56:25.800 So I'm wondering how unreasonable it is to have a 15-week ban.

00:56:31.180 Is that unreasonable?

00:56:33.000 I'm not even sure who suffers by that.

00:56:35.540 And the other thing I question is, what is the age that a baby can survive now?

00:56:51.760 What's the youngest surviving baby that, let's say, that one was delivered?

00:57:00.120 Somebody says 22 weeks is the youngest surviving baby?

00:57:07.000 Somebody said 19, 20, 20 weeks.

00:57:09.900 So somewhere in that range, about 20 weeks.

00:57:12.620 So if the abortion limit were set below the level that any baby has ever survived,

00:57:21.220 at least there's some sense to the thing.

00:57:28.560 So again, I'm not going to give you my opinion.

00:57:30.900 But so here, let me ask you this question.

00:57:34.240 Roe versus Wade went into effect when technology was different.

00:57:39.040 Agreed?

00:57:39.480 When Roe versus Wade became law, could you get a home pregnancy test kit? 0.94

00:57:46.900 Like, you know, a little test strip?

00:57:48.640 They didn't exist, right?

00:57:50.260 Then?

00:57:50.660 I don't think.

00:57:52.060 So we didn't have the, we did not have the technology to know for sure.

00:57:56.700 But we also didn't have the technology that would keep a smaller baby alive for longer.

00:58:04.680 So, in general, should we review our decisions when fundamental things change,

00:58:12.820 such as our ability to know and our ability to keep a baby alive?

00:58:17.060 I mean, it could change in either direction, right?

00:58:18.860 But is it reasonable to review your decisions when the context changes?

00:58:24.740 I think it is.

00:58:25.860 I think it's reasonable to review the decision.

00:58:28.720 Doesn't mean you change it.

00:58:30.600 But totally reasonable to review it as the context has changed.

00:58:34.440 So, I'm in favor of the process so far.

00:58:39.880 I'm quite interested to see what the Supreme Court comes up with.

00:58:44.160 Certainly not my...

00:58:47.440 What about aborting the baby after it's born?

00:58:51.020 Yeah.

00:58:51.560 I think that's fake news, by the way.

00:58:53.240 I know all of you believe that that happened.

00:58:55.820 That there was, that babies are aborted after they're born.

00:58:58.400 I'm still on the side that says that that was always fake news.

00:59:04.800 In terms of a law, it was fake news.

00:59:08.820 Yeah, a lot of you think it's true.

00:59:10.920 Trust me, I understand that a lot of you think it was true.

00:59:14.280 You're not going to convince me.

00:59:16.780 And I'm not saying it didn't happen in one case.

00:59:19.420 I'm not talking about an individual case.

00:59:21.500 I'm talking about the law.

00:59:22.700 There's no law that says a baby born live can be aborted after it's been born.

00:59:32.620 So, I think that that was a little bit of truth fixed.

00:59:36.160 You know, that got conflated with a little bit of not truth.

00:59:39.160 All right, I've got to run.

00:59:40.340 And I'll talk to you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - December 02, 2021

Episode 1580 Scott Adams： The News Is Full of Wonderful Craziness Today. Come Enjoy it

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript