Real Coffee with Scott Adams - Episode 1695 Scott Adams： Headline Lies, Plus My Prediction How Mushrooms Will Change The World

00:00:00.000 Good morning everybody and today will be the most amazing and educational coffee with Scott Adams of

00:00:06.420 all time and and I know what you're thinking. You're thinking that the standard has been so high

00:00:12.400 up to now that how could I exceed that level of excellence? Well let me tell you just when you

00:00:21.400 think you've had enough I'm going to give you another dose. Today among other things I will

00:00:27.000 teach you how to smuggle a reptile and how magic mushrooms will change the world. It's going to be

00:00:34.460 epic. So so good and what do you need to enjoy it? Well you need to be watching but also you need a 1.00

00:00:43.180 copper mug or a glass of tank of chelsea, a canteen, a jug, a glass of vessel of any kind.

00:00:48.140 Fill it with your favorite liquid. Have I ever mentioned I like coffee? And join me now for the

00:00:53.540 unparalleled pleasure. The the dopamine hit of the day. It's the it's the thing that makes

00:00:59.160 honestly it's everything better. It's called the simultaneous sip and you're here for it. Wow. Go.

00:01:06.780 Ah yeah. Yeah. Well lead story today according to CNN a man was arrested at the border from trying to

00:01:22.800 smuggle reptiles into the United States and some of them were endangered. Now Jose Manuel Perez

00:01:32.560 also known as Julio Rodriguez. So he got captured and he had 60 living reptiles hidden in his clothes

00:01:43.340 authorities said 60. So in his actual clothing he had 60 reptiles. Now the question you're asking is

00:01:54.800 is that any kind of a record? Well I don't know what the actual world record is for number of live reptiles

00:02:03.640 in your clothing. I can only speak from personal experience. Most I've ever got was 30. I've never

00:02:13.060 has anybody beat that? I've never had more than 30 live reptiles in my clothing at the same time but this

00:02:20.420 guy got a 60 and I think that speaks well of his professionalism. He may have figured a way to get like

00:02:28.180 you know how in a shoe box if you turn one of the shoes backwards they fit better? You know what I mean?

00:02:34.720 He may have you may have figured out something like that with the reptiles where he's like whoa if I take

00:02:39.320 these two lizards you put them face to face that they don't they take up too much space but if you turn

00:02:45.060 them around you sort of 69 the lizards if you know what I mean saves a little space. So it could be

00:02:51.600 that the story is missed the lead. This isn't really so much about smuggling reptiles as it is about

00:03:00.060 a genius. I mean do you think you could get 60 reptiles into your clothing? This man is a genius. We

00:03:10.860 should hire him immediately for possibly cyber stuff. Now here's the question that a lot of you

00:03:19.220 are asking. If you're going to put 60 reptiles in your clothing what is the proper way to distribute

00:03:24.220 the reptiles for the optimal reptile smuggling situation? That's what you were thinking wasn't it?

00:03:33.000 And here's here's how I would handle it and I'm sure he handled it the same way. Now you've got

00:03:37.620 different sizes of reptiles right? So you've got some snaky things that are just like you know thick

00:03:43.160 strings but you've also got some baby alligators they said. Little baby alligators and this is the

00:03:49.940 way you'd want to distribute them. Now keep in mind that if you get stopped and you're trying to act cool

00:03:55.620 it's going to be hard to act normal if you have 60 live reptiles in your clothing. You'd probably get a

00:04:03.480 little squirmy am I right? Be like hi. Hi officer. What do you got there? Nothing. Nothing. Why are you

00:04:13.640 doing that? What? What am I doing? It'd be a little like that. Now if you're only listening you're missing

00:04:24.380 the best show ever. This was totally a visual gag but it gets better and those of you on audio

00:04:31.220 I'm so sorry for you now because what you're about to miss. All right here's the way you do it. You

00:04:38.940 take the largest lizard. I believe it would be the alligator. You want the alligator to be

00:04:44.440 strategically placed to divert attention from your otherwise squirmy body because if you if you got

00:04:51.840 lizards people are going to notice they're going to notice you're squirming or they might see a

00:04:55.820 little lizard action in your in your arms or whatever. So what you do and I might have to

00:05:01.840 adjust the camera a little bit here. Pardon my red pajamas. So this is the way I'd handle it. I would

00:05:09.360 take the alligators the baby alligators they're about this size and you put them right down the front

00:05:14.680 right here. And then if you're stopped by anybody at the border patrol you use the alligator's natural

00:05:23.500 motions as a distraction from the other reptiles that are distributed around your body. And let me

00:05:29.840 give you an example of how this would look. Excuse me sir will you stop stop right there? And I turn to

00:05:35.440 him and I say what? What? And it you know naturally he's going to look down and let's say there are two

00:05:43.420 border patrol agents. Maybe they're both female because it's funnier. And one of them says excuse 0.98

00:05:49.040 me sir do you have something in your pants? And I say no. That's a rather embarrassing question isn't it?

00:05:56.740 I mean I'm happy. I'm feeling healthy. Having a good day. But you know nothing. Are you smuggling

00:06:06.560 anything in your pants? No. What? Smuggling something in my pants? No. Sir? Can you please move along?

00:06:24.260 So that's how I'd handle it. Now I'm no reptile smuggling commercial expert. But I do know a little

00:06:33.420 bit about magic tricks. And if you want somebody not to notice the other 59 reptiles you put one

00:06:39.080 alligator down your front. Boom. You're all good. All right. So that's my first advice to you.

00:06:49.940 So Elon Musk asked if Twitter was you know doing a good job with free speech. Of course everybody said

00:06:56.960 no. And then people said Elon you must buy Twitter and turn it into a fair thing. What do you think?

00:07:07.580 Should Elon Musk? I don't I actually don't think this is really likely to happen. But do you think

00:07:13.600 you should buy Twitter? A lot of people were saying it. It's nothing he said himself.

00:07:19.320 Seen lots of yeses. Here's the problem. So there are a number of Twitter clones already right?

00:07:29.020 Don't they end up doing pretty much the same thing? That was the problem right? There's some

00:07:35.900 types of speech that everybody has to ban. And it ends up that you know the the stuff that gets like

00:07:42.420 protected and not banned on the other platforms is such a narrow little area of somebody telling a

00:07:49.300 bad joke basically. So I don't know that building a competitor works and I don't know that owning

00:07:55.320 Twitter works. You're still going to end up banning largely the same things. Now one way you could

00:08:01.220 avoid it is do not have any ads. I think that's the only way actually. If you have advertisers the

00:08:09.820 advertisers won't associate with certain kinds of content and therefore you can't really have a

00:08:14.700 viable platform if you use advertisers as your income. Now if you were you know a trillionaire and

00:08:22.900 you had enough money I don't know maybe you could build a platform that didn't cost money and also

00:08:29.940 didn't have ads. But I doubt it. I mean as rich as anybody is it's still going to cost you like

00:08:37.240 billions a year isn't it? I don't know if anybody would do that. Not even the richest person in the

00:08:42.700 world. So I'm not sure that there's really a play economically business model wise to either buy

00:08:49.560 Twitter or to try to promote a an alternative because they just don't know that they end up

00:08:55.900 that different. Now the the exception would be a subscription service. If you're in a subscription

00:09:02.360 service people tend to all be happy because they're just buying what they want and when they

00:09:07.700 don't want it they can immediately stop buying it. So subscription does solve everything but here's

00:09:13.900 what it doesn't solve. Scale. Right? But subscriptions sort of by definition end up being a smaller universe.

00:09:21.900 So you need something like a Twitter Facebook meta to reach the public if you're going to do anything

00:09:29.500 that's trying to influence a wide bunch of people. So nobody really has a model or they would have

00:09:35.600 done it already I suppose to fix the problems that basically everybody sees. I mean everybody sees the

00:09:41.420 same problem. So here's what I suggested to in reply to Elon. And you've heard this idea but

00:09:50.140 look how well this fits. I said we don't need a new platform we need a supreme court of fact-checking.

00:09:58.380 And then I gave a few elements to what that would look like. Not a not a complete standard. But I said

00:10:05.940 first of all it should be non-government. And then everybody who got mad at me said stop giving the

00:10:12.760 government so much power. And I said no the first thing is non-government. The government's not part of it.

00:10:18.220 And then people said it's a slippery slope until the government takes over. No. I said it's a it's not

00:10:24.240 government. The government's over here. And then that's separate. And then my idea would be like over here

00:10:31.440 without any of the government. And then my critics say you can't give the government that much power to which

00:10:38.120 I say well I'm just gonna fucking shoot myself in the head now. Because I don't seem to be able to get this

00:10:42.580 message across the non-government part. Very key to the whole plan. Secondly

00:10:47.760 I would like to stipulate to my critics that if you have a good idea that you design like a fucking

00:10:55.000 idiot your good idea may not be successful. So I will stipulate if you did the dumbest possible

00:11:02.440 things you would get a bad result. Can we all agree on that? Can we find common ground that if you were

00:11:10.240 to simply appoint for life a bunch of fact checkers you would not get a good result? Can we agree?

00:11:17.980 And if there's somebody whose job it is to be the the picker of the fact checkers again

00:11:23.840 would we agree you're not going to get a good result? All right. So can we agree that there are a whole

00:11:30.580 bunch of ways you could definitely fuck this thing up? In real obvious ways. Because if you give

00:11:37.080 you give anybody any kind of power that's lasting it'll be corrupt. Of course. And so

00:11:43.960 some of the elements one might imagine in a system would be full transparency so that everybody can

00:11:52.060 see everything about it all the time. You can see the minority opinion saying we don't agree with this

00:11:57.460 this fact check at all. Here's why. Have you ever seen a fact check with a minority opinion?

00:12:07.060 Have I not already made a better system? Be honest. Have I not already doubled the value

00:12:15.680 of every fact check organization? Simply allowing that here's their opinion and then here's the best

00:12:22.620 minority opinion. Am I right? Just one change. Okay. Now suppose the fact checkers had

00:12:31.600 comments that could be attached to them so that everybody could comment. I don't think the fact

00:12:38.320 checking sites have comments. Do they? Maybe some do. Can somebody fact check my comment about the

00:12:44.260 fact checkers? When I look at fact check sites I don't think they allow counterpoints in any kind of

00:12:51.640 comment field. Right? How about that? Now that doesn't mean that people's comments are additive

00:12:58.600 but wouldn't you like to be able to see them? Because there are times when people say hey look at this

00:13:03.540 link you forgot about this. I'd like to see that. Now I'm not saying that these specific things I'm

00:13:11.180 mentioning are what you need but you definitely need a very short incumbency. The person who's doing

00:13:18.860 the job of fact checking. Let's say there's a group like a supreme court of fact check. Oh not part of

00:13:25.140 the government. All right. Did anybody miss the part about it should be a private enterprise or

00:13:31.520 organ? Let's say not a non-profit but non-government because you can't have profit and you can't have

00:13:38.300 government. Those are the two things you can't have. Then you want people to do it who you know who

00:13:42.640 they are and they're there for a short time. Could be just a week. Right? Is there any reason

00:13:49.000 that you couldn't appoint people for one week? And then maybe the next people you appoint they might

00:13:55.020 actually go back and change the fact check. Because you'd want to be able to here's another thing you'd

00:13:58.960 want. You'd want to have a process by which you continually re-evaluate your old fact checks as

00:14:05.320 needed and update them. Because as the composition of the fact checkers changes through some very

00:14:13.020 transparent process, maybe some of the old opinions get revised. Wouldn't you like to see the record of

00:14:21.080 what they said and why they revised it? Yes. To me it seems that the entire business model of the news

00:14:27.960 could be replaced by fact checking. Would you go to CNN to read the news when you know it's going to

00:14:38.860 be biased basically every time? Or would you go to the fact check site that has the news, the main

00:14:45.900 opinion and then the minority opinion plus the best user comments that bubbled up? I don't know.

00:14:53.560 Depends on the interface, right? If you do a better interface for anything, people come.

00:15:00.660 Good interface solves a lot of problems. So imagine if you had full transparency, very short

00:15:07.080 incumbencies, some kind of a process which I have not figured out yet, and maybe that's the killer,

00:15:13.240 maybe there's no way to figure it out, but I think there is, of how to select people for very short

00:15:18.060 terms to make some fact check decisions, maybe for one week, maybe for one month, and then immediately

00:15:24.700 get to new ones. Because here's a secret of contract negotiation. You ready for this? So I did contract

00:15:33.260 negotiation professionally for years. If there's some uncertainty or risk about the deal, make it short

00:15:41.480 term. That fixes all kinds of stuff. The problem with any kind of a deal or a contract is that you

00:15:49.320 make a bad one and then you're stuck with it for a long time. So you can fix almost any potential

00:15:54.220 problem by saying, well, let's just do it for a week. We'll make it really short. So you make the

00:15:59.480 incumbency of the fact checkers really, really short. Because if you go a week with a bad fact,

00:16:05.520 well, it might get fixed by next week. And that would be not bad by the standards of these things.

00:16:14.140 So yes, maybe it's a jury system. We haven't fully designed it. But my only point is, if you imagine

00:16:23.080 it couldn't be designed properly, I'm positively wrong about that. Does anybody want to disagree?

00:16:30.620 So my statement is, I'm not saying we would design it properly. I'm saying that if you do design it

00:16:38.520 improperly, it won't work. But I believe it could be designed in a way that everybody would say, yeah,

00:16:45.920 it's sort of like democracy. You complain about everything, but you're like, okay, I get it.

00:16:51.520 There was a process. Now, my contention is, this would embarrass the other platforms

00:16:59.120 into at least addressing the fact that the fact check

00:17:04.740 went a certain way. Because could you imagine CNN ignoring a Elon Musk fact check organization

00:17:15.360 that had come to the opposite conclusion than their own news coverage? If the fact check thing

00:17:22.120 gets big enough and gets its own attention, you really couldn't go against it, could you?

00:17:27.280 Because you'd sort of have to mention it, or if you didn't, everybody who saw your story

00:17:32.360 would immediately tweet at you, hey, the fact checkers say your story is fake news.

00:17:38.480 It would be a way to basically control the worst excesses of all the fake news.

00:17:45.900 Now, having made my case, but acknowledging that I've not fully designed it, I've just given you

00:17:53.040 elements that it seems like it would have to be there. Full transparency, short terms,

00:17:59.120 minority opinion, user comments.

00:18:04.140 So far?

00:18:06.920 Now, you need the most important process, perhaps, is how you pick the people.

00:18:13.500 Suppose you did it randomly.

00:18:15.840 Suppose people who had a certain level of qualifications, and maybe you'd say, you know,

00:18:22.740 I don't know, you had to be certain professions, I don't know, would that be too discriminatory?

00:18:30.220 You would want people who other people looked at and said, okay, that's a smart person.

00:18:36.060 Now, if it were a jury trial, I would be perfectly okay with, you know, the regular citizens making

00:18:44.820 those decisions. That's a pretty good system.

00:18:47.120 Because a jury trial, they can break down the complexity into simple enough that the jury can

00:18:53.180 make good decisions.

00:18:55.240 But I think if you're trying to decide if a fact is true, such as global warming will destroy

00:19:03.060 the world. I don't think you want your ordinary citizens to be making the more complicated

00:19:09.740 fact-check decisions, do you? Well, actually, let me inject some uncommon humility into my

00:19:17.160 live stream and say, I don't really know that, do I? My bias is that you need people of a certain

00:19:24.060 level of credential, both to do a good job, but also for other people to think they're doing a good

00:19:29.000 job. But maybe not. Maybe you could test the system and you find out it's just like the jury

00:19:34.820 system. Maybe, yeah, I see people disagree. I actually respect that disagreement. I could be

00:19:40.820 wrong about that. It could be the average citizens do a pretty good job on this stuff. Who knows?

00:19:45.900 Maybe you see both. Maybe there'd be two systems. You can see what the, you know, if you review

00:19:51.060 movies, a movie review would have the expert opinion and then what the audiences are saying.

00:19:57.240 I find that useful, don't you? That when the experts disagree with the audience, that does

00:20:03.400 tell you something. Wouldn't you like to see a case where with fact-checks the experts say

00:20:08.600 it's true and the audience says it's still not? That would actually be useful, wouldn't

00:20:14.640 it? You wouldn't know exactly who's right, but it would be useful. It would tell you what

00:20:21.220 needs to be worked on or who needs to make their argument better. All right, so I think it

00:20:26.060 could be done. And I also further would think that only somebody as clever as Elon Musk could

00:20:34.140 figure out how to engineer truth. Ooh, I like how I summarized that. Only somebody as clever

00:20:42.120 as Elon Musk could figure out how to engineer a system that produces truth. Because remember,

00:20:50.560 the Constitution and our court systems are that. They're engineered to produce, you know,

00:20:56.260 government and engineered to produce truth and justice. Now, they make mistakes, but you

00:21:03.440 have to admit. All right, let me give you a little thought experiment. Before you had ever

00:21:09.100 heard of a jury trial, could you imagine that somebody would have invented that process and

00:21:16.760 it would work? Think about it. Nobody had ever invented jury trials. And somebody comes in

00:21:22.760 and says, I got this idea. Instead of having the smartest people decide if people go to jail,

00:21:29.400 we'll have these illiterate average citizens, you know, at the time, making these life and

00:21:35.900 death decisions about other people. And they barely know anything except where their horse shits,

00:21:41.680 basically. And they'll make all the important decisions. And not only that, will these completely,

00:21:47.220 you know, random citizens make all these decisions. But here's the good part. The rest of

00:21:54.840 the public will consider that a really good system. Do you think you could have sold that system?

00:22:01.860 Think about it. That is something that if it didn't exist, you would never convince people that

00:22:07.780 would work. Am I right? You know I'm right. You would never be able to convince people that

00:22:12.680 system would work. And it turns out it's the best one we have. So when you're looking at the, you know,

00:22:19.640 can you engineer a system that would produce truth for the news, a fact check? If you think that that

00:22:28.100 can't be done, just have some humility, because I don't think you would have seen that a jury of your

00:22:35.220 peers would have worked if it didn't already exist. I don't think you would have seen it. I wouldn't

00:22:39.780 have. I'm not sure I would have. I don't know. I really don't know if I would have gotten behind

00:22:45.940 that if I'd never heard of it before. And then the other thing that Elon Musk could do that nobody

00:22:51.520 else could do, and I think I almost mean that literally, something he could do that maybe no one

00:22:58.780 else could do. And I don't mean just the money. He could A, B test it through embarrassment.

00:23:06.340 The through embarrassment part is the superpower part. He could put up something and have it fail

00:23:12.680 and say, whoops. Just say, well, that was a huge failure. Let's try the second one. Whoops.

00:23:20.480 Total failure. Yeah, let's try another one. And then maybe he has it on the third try.

00:23:25.120 Who else could do that? Seriously. Who else could fail like right in front of you and then say,

00:23:33.140 let's try it again. We'll tweak this. He could. Kanye could. Damn it. Damn it. You're right.

00:23:40.120 Yeah, Kanye could do that. But Elon could do it. All right. So he's not the only one. Yeah,

00:23:45.520 Kanye could do it. All right. Update on the Taylor Hawkins tragic story. 50-year-old drummer

00:23:54.120 for the Foo Fighters died suddenly, and nobody was surprised that today the urine toxicology test

00:24:01.060 said that he had 10 psychoactive substances in his body, including THC, tricyclic antidepressants,

00:24:11.880 benzos, and opioids. What would be one of the things that would be in the category of opioids?

00:24:18.940 Unspecified. Unspecified. What would be one unspecified specific opioid that is sometimes

00:24:27.640 known to kill people? Yeah. Now, there's no mention whether fentanyl was involved, and I'm

00:24:33.960 not entirely sure they can determine, can they? I would think they could, right? We may never

00:24:40.660 know. However, this also brings up a very disturbing fact. What would be the cause of death on the death

00:24:50.960 certificate if somebody has 10 drugs and they die of an OD? What would they say on the death

00:24:59.900 certificate? And I hate the fact that a bunch of you are going to know the answer to this.

00:25:05.140 Do you know why a bunch of you are going to know the answer to this? Because you've experienced

00:25:10.060 it, as have I. So unfortunately, I know the answer to this question because I had to go

00:25:15.120 through it. The answer is you can't identify the one drug that killed somebody. So there's

00:25:23.640 some generic term about a multiple drug overdose. So what if fentanyl is killing twice as many

00:25:33.940 people as we think? Because that may actually be possible. Don't know. But my stepson's death

00:25:44.620 was not listed as fentanyl. That was just one thing he had. But what kills you? Right? It's

00:25:53.200 not the... It wasn't the THC in his blood, was it? It wasn't the beer. Probably there was only

00:26:01.600 one thing that killed him. But he had 10 things. So the doctors say, well, you never know. It's,

00:26:06.240 you know, maybe the fentanyl. So here's the argument. You never know if the fentanyl by itself

00:26:11.780 would have been enough. But certainly you do know, because of the outcome, that the fentanyl

00:26:18.020 plus the other stuff definitely was enough. So since you can't know it was the fentanyl,

00:26:24.080 you give it a generic thing. What does that mean for our fentanyl death numbers?

00:26:31.680 Is there any possibility or any chance at all that they're not understated? They have to be,

00:26:39.040 right? Am I wrong? I'd love to see a doctor's opinion on this because I'm way out of my area. But if

00:26:45.820 these multiple drugs, which is very typical, by the way, and overdose is typically multiple drugs,

00:26:54.000 I think, I would think almost all the time. Because people who take stuff, take stuff.

00:26:58.420 You know, they don't stop with the one thing. So I don't know if that will come out as a fentanyl

00:27:07.040 story or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. In a related story, there's a non-profit that can make

00:27:12.700 fentanyl test strips. A little piece of paper you can stick in your drugs to find out if there's

00:27:18.780 any fentanyl in what you thought was your, I don't know, heroin or fake Xanax or cocaine or

00:27:26.820 whatever. But I don't know that that's going to get a lot of play. You know what I mean? I don't know

00:27:33.860 how many addicts are going to waste some of their product for the purpose of testing it. Because you'd

00:27:41.040 have to use up some of it for testing, right? Kind of expensive. So I just don't see junkies using

00:27:47.640 test strips. I like the idea. It's better than not having them. But it's a pretty small plug.

00:27:54.440 Well, I guess there was an audit of the FBI, internal audit. And there's some report came

00:28:01.460 out that's highly redacted. But it found 747 compliance errors in 353 separate cases. So

00:28:09.600 about two compliance errors per case in the category of sensitive investigative matters.

00:28:17.380 So in other words, the stuff that's important. So there were two investigative errors or compliance

00:28:25.220 errors on average for every case. And the Bureau acknowledged the audit findings were unacceptable.

00:28:33.580 What would be the acceptable number? So 747 compliance errors, average of two per case.

00:28:43.160 That's too much. What would be the right number? One per case. Now, if you've worked in a big

00:28:50.120 organization, you might see this a little differently. Allow me to explain. If you went to any major

00:28:56.800 corporation and looked at anything that anybody's doing in a project, how many compliance errors would

00:29:03.500 you find just in a corporation that has broken its own internal rules or maybe some statute or law?

00:29:12.200 Let's say it's a substantial project. Probably every one. Yeah. Because we have

00:29:20.040 so many rules and regulations and standards that you really can't do anything important without

00:29:26.320 breaking a few. So do you think that the FBI could even get their job done without intelligently

00:29:35.200 cutting some corners? Yes-ish. But I would imagine if you're an agent and you're tasked with being

00:29:45.220 efficient, probably the only way you can be efficient is by ignoring the rules of your own

00:29:50.840 organization. That would be very typical, right? The only way you can get anything done in a corporation

00:29:55.960 is figuring out a way around their own rules. Literally. Am I right? Anybody who's worked for a big

00:30:02.220 company, you know, watch in the comments, you'll see confirmation that, yeah, it's coming already.

00:30:08.000 If you work in a big company, your biggest problem is figuring out how to get around your own

00:30:12.580 internal organization. So it looks like the FBI, probably exactly the same problem as any big

00:30:19.260 organization. Certainly. Certainly the same problems. And it looks like the FBI agents are making the

00:30:25.520 mistake of trying to do their jobs. Now that would be the friendliest interpretation. The friendliest

00:30:31.820 interpretation is sometimes you just got to break your own rules to get anything done. Doesn't mean it's evil.

00:30:37.220 But on the other hand, it's the FBI. If there's anybody who shouldn't be breaking any rules,

00:30:45.800 it would be the FBI because there's so much at stake. So I can't give them a pass. You know,

00:30:52.360 nor should you. We can't say, well, everybody, everybody's a little sloppy. You know, it doesn't

00:30:57.400 work that way for the FBI. So yeah, they got it. They got to fix that. But certainly everything

00:31:02.840 we've thought about their reliability is being confirmed. Well, here's big news on Ukraine.

00:31:10.300 You know, it seems like every day had been like every other day. You know, all the news is Russia

00:31:17.300 still attacking. But now we've got some actual new news. So Sean Penn vowed to destroy his Academy

00:31:26.260 Award if Zelensky isn't invited to speak at the Oscars. So Oscars, Russia-Ukraine war. You can see why 0.64

00:31:37.800 Sean Penn thinks that these two things should be paired. Because what I want with my mindless popcorn

00:31:43.100 entertainment is a little bit more war talk in the middle of a war. So good idea from Sean Penn to combine

00:31:50.400 those two art forms, first of all. And second of all, I think that he's starting a trend that

00:31:56.700 I could back. And I too would like to support Sean Penn. And this is the award I got for Outstanding

00:32:13.800 Cartoonist of the Year in 1997. It's called the Rubin Award. Now this is the, like the

00:32:20.380 Academy Awards for cartoonists. And if Zelensky doesn't get to speak at the Rubins, I will destroy

00:32:30.040 this. I will destroy this. And not only that, but I mean, just look at me. Obviously, I've had more

00:32:38.940 awards than one. For example, one of my best awards here, very proud of this. This was the

00:32:47.720 Deep High Scott Adams Celebrity Waiter for the Radisson Hotel in 2009. So there were a lot of

00:32:56.580 celebrity waiters that year. But none really reached the standard that I achieved. Now this award means

00:33:05.900 a lot to me, my Celebrity Waiter Award. And if we don't immediately lower the temperature for climate

00:33:16.440 change, immediately, and I'm talking in the next month, if we don't get the climate change fixed

00:33:23.680 the next month, I'm going to destroy this. This, this will be just shards, completely destroyed.

00:33:31.260 I'm not done. I mean, like you think that's all the awards I've won. Now, I also won the

00:33:38.900 Shumei Adams 2003 Masters Tennis Championship, which was held on my tennis court between me and

00:33:46.680 one other person. Now, the good news is, the worst anybody did was come in second. There were only

00:33:54.780 two of us. But I did prevail. And I did go to the trophy shop and make myself an award.

00:34:01.520 Now, that doesn't make it any less prestigious, the fact that I went and made an award for myself.

00:34:07.680 Some of you will complain and say that means less. It doesn't. It doesn't. Now, this award will be

00:34:15.940 completely destroyed if I see any masking in public. If I see anybody with a mask in public,

00:34:26.720 I'm going to take this and just going to smash it on the ground. And I realized that I'm going to

00:34:33.940 have to accomplish a few more things to get a few more awards, because there's a lot of society that

00:34:40.860 needs to be fixed. And if I can join with Sean Penn and destroy my personal awards to fix the world,

00:34:49.220 I feel I feel I should do that. And so I'm with you, Sean. Let's do this.

00:34:58.840 Well, let's talk about Ukraine. Ukraine won't negotiate losing any territory.

00:35:03.960 What? It seems like there's not much left of Ukraine, but they won't negotiate any loss of 0.99

00:35:11.220 territory that they've already lost. Those Ukrainians are holding tough, let me tell you.

00:35:16.440 But if Ukraine won't negotiate, and of course Russia won't negotiate, because they wouldn't

00:35:22.400 have anybody to negotiate with on the territorial stuff, and it's the only thing they want, or

00:35:28.000 the main thing they want, has this not become a decapitation war? So isn't the entire war down

00:35:35.340 to, can they kill Zelensky before Putin is, I don't know, maybe taken out by his own people 0.61

00:35:43.320 or something like that? So if nobody's willing to negotiate, does it just go on forever because

00:35:51.520 the two leaders, I mean, they should both be assassinated at this point? No, I'm kidding.

00:35:57.940 Don't demonetize me. Nobody should be assassinated. I'm just saying that I can't love either one

00:36:03.700 of them at this point. Don't love either one of them. So Biden went overseas and only made

00:36:12.160 two blunders that we've heard of. He accidentally suggested that U.S. troops would go to Ukraine,

00:36:18.660 which of course would trigger World War III. And he also seemed to call for regime change

00:36:26.660 of Putin, which would also trigger World War III. So it was a pretty good trip, pretty good trip,

00:36:35.740 because he only did two things which have a pretty good chance of triggering the entire

00:36:40.440 annihilation of civilization. Civilization. But civilization had a good run, and

00:36:48.160 the mainstream media is going sort of softly on him for these things. And indeed, the White House

00:36:57.360 quickly clarified that when Biden says that Vladimir Putin must go, that really they're not

00:37:05.000 talking about regime change, even though those words sound exactly like it. What they're talking

00:37:11.260 about is that he should assert less control over his neighbors. So if you say the sky is blue,

00:37:20.380 the White House will say, I think you're misinterpreting that sky is blue comment.

00:37:24.580 What he's saying is your dog has fleas. And you think to yourself, well, none of those words,

00:37:32.460 like that's not even close, really, is it? And then the White House says, please, please,

00:37:41.380 Peter Doocy, don't be that way, Peter Doocy. You need to understand that when the president says

00:37:47.700 the sky is blue, he really means if you look at the context that your dog has fleas. And that's

00:37:54.840 pretty obvious. Yes, you have been gaslighted by the White House. It was just, it was misspeak.

00:38:00.920 Now, of course, Biden is not planning on sending troops, and he's not planning on a decapitation

00:38:07.780 strike on Putin. And even Russia kind of ignored it and said, well, that's sort of up to the Russian

00:38:13.140 people. It was kind of probably a good play for the Russians not to make that a big deal.

00:38:21.680 Because I think they want to downplay any story about Putin being in jeopardy, right? Because it

00:38:27.580 wasn't that an interesting response from Russia? Imagine if you will, Russia, imagine if you will,

00:38:34.360 Putin calling for the removal of Biden in ways that sounded like maybe you mean violently.

00:38:40.660 That would be a pretty big story. Pretty big story. Shouldn't it be a pretty big story the other

00:38:46.280 way? I mean, it is pretty big story. But Russia, instead of playing it up like maybe you think they

00:38:52.840 would, it's like, hey, hey, these guys think that taking out a leader is good. Hey, stop

00:38:57.300 it. Instead, they minimized it. They minimized it by saying, no, it's up to Russian people.

00:39:05.000 You know, basically, they just treated it like trash talk, like it didn't have any real world

00:39:09.100 meaning. That was exactly the right way to play that. Because do you know what the Russians 1.00

00:39:16.160 don't want to be in? Any kind of conversation about removing Putin, even if the dominant opinion

00:39:24.880 is that he should not be removed? You don't even want to have the conversation. Because

00:39:29.660 do you know what matters? Is it important things? Is that what mattered to us? No, no. There's

00:39:38.480 no evidence that important things matter to us. What does matter to us? Well, what people tell

00:39:45.840 us we should think about? And how often we're exposed to it? What we think is important is

00:39:51.840 what we're exposed to the most. That's it. That's the whole mechanism. If the only thing

00:39:57.240 you were exposed to was some trash on the sidewalk, that would be your biggest problem in the world.

00:40:04.340 That's the only thing you're thinking about. I mean, it wouldn't change the fact that somebody

00:40:08.260 might nuke you in 10 minutes. But the only thing you're exposed to is this trash on the sidewalk.

00:40:13.180 It's the biggest problem in the world to me. So the only thing you have to do to make something

00:40:18.460 the biggest problem is to expose people to it a lot. The last thing that Russia wants 0.69

00:40:24.060 is a conversation about whether Putin should or should not be removed. Do you know why?

00:40:32.620 It's thinking past the sale. If you can get people to discuss whether he should or should not be

00:40:38.400 removed, you've already gotten them to agree there was something removable in the topic.

00:40:46.300 Something removable. The war crimes. And indeed, most people would agree with that. So imagine the 0.96

00:40:51.380 Russian people who don't know what the hell is going on suddenly finding that the news keeps

00:40:55.740 talking about whether Putin should be removed by his own people. And you're in Russia and you hear

00:41:02.120 that and you're like, wait a minute. Why is that even a national topic? I thought the war was going

00:41:08.620 well. Everything looks good. Why would the Russian people remove him? He's popular. So it's pretty good 1.00

00:41:15.180 persuasion to get the Russian people to yak about how inappropriate it was for Biden to mention it.

00:41:22.100 Let me be even-handed. If Trump had said that and left some ambiguity so he could say, oh, I didn't mean

00:41:31.480 take out Putin, and it caused everybody to talk about removing Putin, I would have called it genius.

00:41:40.920 You know I would have. I would have called that genius. I think Biden blundered into it.

00:41:48.740 But Russia did exactly the right thing by minimizing it. So if Biden had blundered in a way that was an

00:41:59.300 actual blunder, I mean it was a blunder to do it, I think. But I don't think it was blunderous.

00:42:05.840 Meaning that if it had been a blunder, Russia would have amplified it. Am I right? If Biden mentioning

00:42:13.340 Putin being removed by any means, if that had not been good for the war effort of the Ukrainians,

00:42:21.520 the Russians would have been talking about that like crazy. Hey, hey, hey, hey, why are you talking

00:42:26.140 about that? Unfair. Hey, yeah, we did some bad things, but look what you're doing. Hey, yeah,

00:42:31.680 okay, we bombed some civilians, granted, but look what you're doing. You're trying to assassinate

00:42:37.180 leaders? No, no. So it could be one of the best blunders. Biden made. All right. And of

00:42:50.760 course, CNN is reporting that the Ukrainians are counterattacking and reclaimed several

00:42:55.520 cities. How true does that sound to you? Are the Ukrainians, quote, counterattacking and 1.00

00:43:05.000 counterattacking to the extent that it should be a headline? All right. Obviously, there are

00:43:11.280 counterattacks. I think that's obvious. But are they counterattacking to such a degree that

00:43:19.440 is important and could change the course of the war? I don't know. Who knows? But, you know,

00:43:28.720 we don't believe anything that comes out of the war zone. But here's what I think about reclaimed

00:43:34.340 several cities. Here's how to interpret it. Is there any indication that the Russians plan to

00:43:42.040 conquer and hold every town and hamlet and city? There's no evidence of that at all. There's plenty

00:43:52.340 of evidence that they needed to fight their way from wherever they were to wherever they were going,

00:43:57.160 which probably included going through cities and smaller ones and, you know, taking out the

00:44:02.500 defenses there so that they sort of clear the space to move where they want to move.

00:44:08.020 So in my best guess, these so-called reclaimed cities are ones that Russia didn't want, wasn't 0.89

00:44:16.920 trying to hold, was just passing through. I think it's fake news. What do you think? Do you think

00:44:23.400 there's any chance that there's a serious Ukraine counterattack that's really, like, making a

00:44:32.660 difference? Somebody says, you must be young. Hey, that's my line. They named no cities. No, you

00:44:41.040 know, I was going to say that, and then I thought maybe I read it wrong. Right? Because it seemed like

00:44:48.120 there were, the news was saying that the Ukrainians had recaptured some cities but didn't mention them.

00:44:53.600 And I thought, oh, I probably read it too fast and they were mentioned. But somebody else noticed

00:44:58.980 that, that they didn't mention the cities? I mean, that's all you need to know, right? If they don't

00:45:03.440 mention the city, you know. All right. Here's my most wild prediction of the day, and I feel pretty

00:45:12.940 confident about this. I'm going to tell you how mushrooms will make America dominate China. 0.96

00:45:19.600 You ready for this? And I mean this. This is real. So here's something you might not be aware of,

00:45:27.620 but you're pretty smart, so maybe you are. Let's see. Were you aware that only maybe two years ago

00:45:36.880 it was impractical to do illegal mushrooms? And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I'm not

00:45:45.000 recommending any illegal drugs. Children, if you're watching this, don't. Go to bed immediately,

00:45:51.140 even though it's the morning. Go back to bed. And don't do drugs. I'm talking about what's going

00:45:57.600 to happen, not what I want to happen, okay? 2020, it was kind of impractical because you couldn't

00:46:04.980 find it easily. It would be hard to know what quantity. You would be more afraid of the legal

00:46:10.880 consequences. But in the last two years, there have been huge movements toward decriminalizing.

00:46:17.840 I suspect, and I don't know this for sure, but I suspect that in California, for example,

00:46:22.500 if you got caught with some small user quantity of mushrooms, that probably basically nothing would

00:46:30.120 happen to you, I think. I mean, I don't know that. But I think locally, it's so at least mentally

00:46:37.120 decriminalized, mentally decriminalized, not technically, that I don't even know if the court

00:46:44.240 systems would do anything. I think they'd just send you home. I'm not sure. But I think in California,

00:46:51.100 it's basically close to legal, just because the court system doesn't care. I'll need a fact check

00:46:58.660 on that, but I'm not sure. However, in 2022, the mushroom business has matured. And you can now buy

00:47:07.940 chocolate bars that are metered. So you know, if you take this little square, it gives you this kind

00:47:14.320 of effect. If you take two of those squares, this kind of effect. Now, they appear to be widely

00:47:21.960 available, at least in California. If they're widely available, they've solved the biggest problem of

00:47:28.880 dosage, so that you feel a little bit safe. I mean, this is not FDA approved stuff, right? But you're

00:47:34.960 going to feel safer if somebody did the work of putting it in a nice package and metering the doses.

00:47:40.340 Once it becomes easy, here's what's going to happen. Our old ways of looking at things are going to

00:47:45.920 just dissolve. When enough people in a society have had the mushroom experience, again, I'm not

00:47:53.300 recommending it. I'm just describing it. Their sense of what is possible will change, and their sense of

00:48:02.940 what can't be changed will be obliterated. Obliterated. And this is going to happen in a big

00:48:10.560 way in the United States in the next few years. I'm talking about two to five years. If you've

00:48:16.420 noticed how quickly mushrooms went from a secret topic to a headline topic, pretty much in all the

00:48:24.840 major media, and it's even bipartisan. I mentioned this yesterday. Both Republicans and Democrats

00:48:30.120 are working on bills to decriminalize, legalize, make it medically available, etc. So it's definitely

00:48:38.820 going to happen. There's no doubt about it. Mushrooms are going to be really big in the United

00:48:43.760 States. Will they be big in China? Probably not. They're not so big on drugs, are they? What's

00:48:50.780 going to happen is our old frames will dissolve. It will cause a total social re-engineering for

00:48:56.160 everything important, from school to family to work. And the outcome of that is that the

00:49:03.920 United States will destroy its old frames faster than other countries. What happens when you

00:49:12.740 destroy your old way of doing things faster than other countries? You dominate them.

00:49:21.540 You dominate them. And I actually think, and this is not a joke, that nobody understands how big this

00:49:32.440 is. There are a few people who do. I would love to hear an opinion from, let's say, Mike Cervich. I don't

00:49:41.740 think he'll disagree, but I'd love to hear his opinion. People who have not had any experience with this

00:49:49.760 realm don't have any idea what's coming. This will be a total rewiring of our consciousness. Remember

00:49:59.880 I told you that Trump would change everything about reality? And he did. He didn't just change

00:50:06.320 politics. He changed our ability to perceive the world objectively. And we learned that it's just

00:50:12.180 purely subjective, and that we're all living in completely different movies, and we have no idea

00:50:16.540 what's going on. So I correctly predicted that years in advance, and it happened. And that was a weird

00:50:23.720 prediction, wasn't it? I was the only one that made it. And I'm doing it again in this realm.

00:50:30.940 There will, you know, and it might only take a, I don't know, 10 or 20 percent penetration into the

00:50:38.240 public. I'm not talking about everybody doing mushrooms. I'm talking about a penetration.

00:50:42.160 Let me ask you this. What would happen if the rate of mental illness in this country

00:50:48.580 was cut in half in five years? Do you know what mental health is as a cost to society? It's through

00:50:59.500 the roof. It's enormous. Mushrooms could probably cut that in half in five years. Think about it.

00:51:08.920 That's just crazy. People who have done mushrooms often tend to go on and do amazing things. I don't

00:51:16.240 know if it's a causation or correlation. It could be that people who take risks take all kinds of

00:51:21.380 risks. That would make sense. But having experienced mushrooms when I was in my 20s, just once,

00:51:29.440 it's my opinion that it changes you so fundamentally and so permanently that it makes you more effective.

00:51:35.040 It actually just makes you able to achieve more. That's what it felt like. And I think other people

00:51:41.540 have had similar experiences. And I'm seeing in the comments, yeah, just once. Now other people say,

00:51:49.960 you know, different dosages and, you know, take them over time and get different. I don't know. I have

00:51:55.420 no opinion about what's a proper dose of anything. But that was my experience. And other people have had

00:52:01.100 a similar experience. So you're going to see America dominate China. And it's going to be in large part 0.88

00:52:08.800 because the mushrooms will change our effectiveness in a way that China can't compete. Because culturally, 0.83

00:52:15.080 I just don't think they're all going to be taking mushrooms. In this country? Yup. And let me tell you

00:52:21.980 already that Silicon Valley, I guess I could tell you this. I've told you this before.

00:52:32.100 Do you know why Silicon Valley is so successful?

00:52:36.980 Lots of reasons. Really smart people, you know, universities nearby. Once you get a concentration

00:52:44.720 of people, then it's easier to get more of those kinds of people. It's all those things. But

00:52:49.700 the people in Silicon Valley are not operating under normal human conditions. They're starting

00:52:58.360 out as really capable people, and then they're finding ways to take it to the next level. And

00:53:04.040 they're basically brain hacking. And it's the people who can hack anything. They can hack computers,

00:53:09.800 network systems, countries, and now they're working on their own brain. Do you think that the

00:53:14.580 smartest people in the world who can hack anything could collectively, as they're working together,

00:53:20.120 you know, with this thing, do you think that they can figure out how to boost their own performance

00:53:24.120 by finding the right combination of legal and, in some cases, illegal substances? And the answer is,

00:53:31.960 if you think drugs are about junkies, well, unfortunately, most of it is. But there's a small

00:53:40.120 percentage of the world who are not addicted and are using it scientifically and in a very calculated,

00:53:48.980 engineered way, A-B testing, you know, really doing the research and the testing and talking to other

00:53:55.420 people and comparing notes and stuff. And those people are operating at just a higher level than

00:54:00.940 that humans have ever operated at. Let me say it again. If you took the smartest person,

00:54:09.080 you know, the smartest people in Silicon Valley, and let's say you already said, oh, these are the

00:54:14.600 smartest you can get. You know, others might be as smart, but this is about as good as you can get.

00:54:19.240 And then you said, all right, now this group, we're going to say you should start experimenting with,

00:54:24.560 you know, neurotropics and everything from minerals to various legal and illegal microdosing.

00:54:32.280 Do you think they're doing that already? Like crazy. They are doing A-B testing on themselves

00:54:39.580 like crazy. Are they good at it? They're good at everything.

00:54:45.640 Just hear that part again. These are the smartest people in Silicon Valley. Are they good at hacking

00:54:54.540 their own brains with chemistry and testing? They're good at everything. If there's anything

00:55:02.360 you need to understand, that collectively, this is a group of people, they don't fail collectively.

00:55:09.780 Individually, you know, companies fail, et cetera, of course. But collectively, yeah, yeah, it is working.

00:55:18.700 And they will tell you that. And it makes a big difference. Now, what's the downside? A lot. All right?

00:55:26.100 A lot. Don't you think that there's anybody in Silicon Valley who thought they were just being smart,

00:55:31.640 who ended up, you know, drifting into too much drugs and becoming addicts? Of course. I mean,

00:55:39.900 I don't know. I've never heard of any story, but I wouldn't, right? And so don't think that any of

00:55:46.200 this is safe. I'm saying these are risk-taking people by nature. The entrepreneurs are risk-takers.

00:55:52.060 And they are definitely juicing themselves and taking themselves to a level of human cognition and

00:55:59.740 capability that society has probably never experienced in the history of humankind.

00:56:06.320 So there's some fun stuff ahead because the best and the brightest are testing their ways to new

00:56:11.260 levels of effectiveness. And in a way, that's the most important story that's happening right now.

00:56:16.620 You could take anything in the world and then look into the future and say, how is climate change

00:56:22.500 going to be addressed or remediated or solved? Well, it's probably going to be a whole bunch of

00:56:29.580 really smart people. And would you bet against at least one of those smart people who makes an

00:56:34.620 impact, you know, invent something, starts the company, whatever, would you bet against one of

00:56:39.160 them having had some experience with psychedelics? I don't know the answer to this, but do you think

00:56:46.040 Elon Musk has ever experienced psychedelics? He's probably spoken about it. Does anybody know the

00:56:51.620 answer to that question? I think you're guessing. I see some people say yes, but you're guessing,

00:56:59.120 right? I don't know that that's ever been confirmed. But here's the thing. I feel like you could,

00:57:07.980 it takes one to know one. You know what I mean? Here's a weird thing about a psychedelic experience.

00:57:15.620 If you do it once, you can often pick people out of a crowd who have done it. Am I wrong? I mean,

00:57:23.800 not out of, not strangers out of a crowd, but you, but you could know somebody for a while and just say,

00:57:28.920 I know what you've done. Am I wrong? Anybody who's had the experience? Yeah, I'm seeing confirmation.

00:57:38.380 Yeah. Because if you think it doesn't change you permanently, you're really wrong. And the same way

00:57:43.940 that travel changes you. That's the best analogy. It's a bad analogy, but the best one I can. I

00:57:51.540 believe that you could pick out people fairly easily who are widely traveled. Would you agree

00:57:58.200 with that? If they, if they never mentioned their travels and you just would talk to somebody on

00:58:04.980 some topic for a while, don't you think you could pick out some, you know, not, and I'm not talking

00:58:09.300 about somebody who's born in another country and has an accent or something. I'm talking about just

00:58:13.420 somebody who doesn't have any tell except just the way they act and talk and think. I'll bet,

00:58:20.880 I'll bet you could pick out somebody who has traveled a lot because their, their mind would

00:58:24.540 be more open. And I think you could pick it out pretty quickly. I think. Now that ladies and

00:58:31.180 gentlemen concludes the amazing, amazing content, which we call Coffee with Scott Adams. I think you'll

00:58:39.080 agree it's among the best things you've ever seen in your whole life, uh, matched only by possibly

00:58:46.040 tomorrow. And so, um, I bid you adieu on YouTube. Thanks for joining. And, uh, I'm going to talk

00:58:55.260 to the people on the locals for a little bit and, uh, I'll see you tomorrow.

00:59:01.080 And, uh, uh, I'll see you tomorrow.

Real Coffee with Scott Adams - March 27, 2022

Episode 1695 Scott Adams： Headline Lies, Plus My Prediction How Mushrooms Will Change The World

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript