Episode 1202 Scott Adams - Dale and I Tell You the News From Both Realities

hey everybody come on in come on in it's time it's time for a coffee with scott adams best part of the day now i gotta tell you that the sunday after thanksgiving is just about the sleepiest day of the year but we're gonna dig deep and find some fun here today in all of the boringness but first in order to enjoy it to its full full full extent all you need is a copper margarita glass of danger chelsea's inaccurate drug a flask of vessel of any kind so with your favorite liquid i like coffee and join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day the thing that makes everything better including recounts it's called the simultaneous tip that happens now go so good so there's a really interesting chess game going on in the middle east and i hate to be fascinated by war and death but it's hard not to be you know if you're a human you've always got these you know two thoughts going on well that's horrible i hope there's less of that i don't want any death and destruction over there but on the other hand it's really interesting which is not really uh not really fun somebody said it's the scott sophistry hour anybody who who accuses you of sophistry that's that's one of the dumbest the one one of the dumbest criticisms i don't even need to say more about that it's just dumb usually when they accuse you of sophistry is because they they don't agree with you it doesn't mean i'm wrong um anyway talk about the middle east so as you know there was a uh assassination of a the top iranian nuclear scientist guy everybody assumes it's israel but the timing is the interesting part because if biden goes ahead and takes office as many people assume will happen this really throws a little uh wrinkle into it doesn't it because what is iran going to do here's the clever part does iran just ignore it because if they do there'll be more of it right there'll be more more targeted assassinations i assume more things will blow up and that sort of thing but what if they what if they retaliate if they retaliate they either retaliate weakly you know in a weak way that makes no difference so what's the point or they tell you they retaliate strong what would happen if they did a strong retaliation when biden is trying to figure out how to maybe get back into the iran peace deal it would really make it hard for biden to make any kind of uh overture for peace or an agreement with iran so i think if if we assume as everybody assumes that israel was behind it let's call that a safe assumption baseless oh it's baseless i have not seen any not one piece of evidence certainly nothing's been proven in court so i think we could all agree that the allegations that israel is behind that assassination baseless by definition because there's no evidence right don't you know that if something is baseless then i guess you have to treat it like it didn't happen because it's baseless now i have argued of course that there are some situations which are so obvious that you don't really need too much proof do you how much proof do you need that israel israel was behind that assassination would you be willing to make decisions and act upon your belief that israel was behind it while knowing it's baseless i thought we didn't do that can you act upon something with no evidence just because you know that the the way the situation is constructed there really is sort of only one person who could have been behind it if you know what i mean it wasn't estonia estonia gets a free pass and all of this stuff don't they so uh we'll watch that but it looks to me that israel has made the right chess move because if you're the second in command of the nuclear program in iran you're not so effective today i don't think you're doing much communicating with your staff if you're the number two nuclear guy so at the very least it's going to make things less efficient over there all right um let's talk about something else so i tweeted today my minimum requirement for unity with democrats now democrats are calling for unity some of them anyway and i i like the i like the concept of unity and i like anytime a national leader calls for unity we should take that pretty seriously and i think that the united states should have as its very strong goal to be unified of course you need a system to get there but here is what i would um recommend in order to get good with somebody it helps if you tell them what it would take because you don't want somebody who's trying to find some unity with you just guessing what you need right it could it just isn't very efficient for the other person to say okay i want some unity with you i'd like to get along i'm gonna guess what it would take to do that why make them guess why not just say look i'll be okay with you under the following conditions you know i'll still hate your policies and will still argue about politics but i'll be okay with you as a citizen as a person i'll be okay with you under the following conditions and here are my conditions now it's not the only things that have ever bothered me i'm just saying it's the only things i need sort of the minimum to to think about unity and my minimum requirement is that the democrats apologize for the fine people oaks the drinking bleak hoax and the russian collusion oaks which they like to confuse with russian interference which actually did happen and of course i'm using a little persuasion trick do you recognize it what persuasion trick am i using maybe more than one let's see how good you are at spotting them now i've been training you for for a few years i'll read it again and then you tell me what persuasion trick yeah laundry list is one of them but there's another one i'm going for all right see if he can catch it my minimum require for unity with democrats is an apology for the fine people oaks drinking bleach oaks and the russian collusion oaks somebody says high ground no it's uh i see why you're saying high ground but that's not what i was going for it's thing he passed the sale that is correct very good most i'm seeing in the comments uh most of you are actually getting the right answer do would you have gotten that answer before i started talking about this thinking pass the sale thing would you have all spotted that because i'd like to think that i set your filter so that you can spot it now all right so it is a persuasion trick to make them think about the apology for the hoaxes it makes them think past the question of hey were these things real or were these things hoaxes now they were hoaxes i'm not trying to fool people into thinking something untrue i'm trying to persuade them into thinking something that's true that is real you know it's closer to reality than whatever they were imagining so it i would say that this is ethical persuasion manipulation is a word that i would use for unethical persuasion where you're persuading something that's good you're persuading other people to do something that's good for you but maybe not so good for them that's manipulation but regular persuasion where you're getting people to do things that are good for them and good for you i would say that's just leadership all right and of course this uh triggered a bunch of people to say what do you mean find people hoax i saw it myself on tv he said it i heard it with my own ears and i'm taking a new technique with those people my old technique was let me show you my evidence here's the transcript here's my argument for why it's a hoax as you've witnessed i've been doing that for years with almost no success almost no success in simply presenting an argument with facts and really clear facts ones which they can check oh here's the transcript now i see that i only saw the first part of the transcript now that you've showed me the second part i can see it's a hoax but when i only saw the first part i was convinced i saw everything i needed to see and then i was fooled all right so that never worked you would think that would be the most obvious thing that would work right i believe something incorrect well let me give you incontrovertible proof that you can check yourself in five seconds you can google it yourself just look for yourself in five seconds i can show you a fact that disproves your original thought didn't work not ever so here's the new technique when somebody makes that claim he did say it i saw it with my own eyes i retweet it and i tell the world there are still people who think this happened there's still people who believe this and boy does it trigger them of course they go crazy because you're calling them out to embarrass them for a fake memory which they still think is true and so they're going to start to defend their false memory which they can't it's not it's not possible because it didn't happen and here's what here's the new trick so the new trick compared to the old track the old technique was i would show them the transcript and make my argument and never worked the new one is this i say if you believe it happened i challenge you to go find the transcript and paste it in the comments and of course they think uh what kind of trick is this are you telling me that if i go get the transcript myself i'm going to debunk myself and of course they don't believe that and the first thing that they will do predictably is go get the fake transcript which is the first half where they leave out trump's clarification that was unprompted that modifies what he said so you're not confused if you only see the top half you are confused that's why he clarified it so that's the first thing they'll do is say here it is here's the transcript i win i said he said it in public there's the transcript i've won my case and then you say no it isn't that's not the transcript now go back and find the whole transcript now the reason that i do this is because it is impossible to talk somebody into believing something they thought they saw with their own eyes but it might be possible to get them to talk themselves out of it you have to make them work because if you do the work and say here's the transcript just read it that just never works because they're just automatically in defensive mode but if you make them do the work on their own you go find me the transcript no that wasn't it nope nope you did not find the transcript yet you found the fake one now go back and find the rest of it because even you can see that wasn't the last thing he said i mean you can tell from the the excerpt that's not done so we'll see if that works i'll report in later but it looked like it was making an effect all right uh i'd like to read to you uh two versions of the news okay one version uh let's say the two movies on one screen version of the news and it's about the pennsylvania legal challenges and it goes like this first i'll give you the news from the let's say the right the news is there are lots of irregularities and uh constitutional violations in the pennsylvania election and is working itself through the legal system and we have some indication from the supreme court that they're likely to agree and throw out a bunch of votes so pennsylvania is looking good not only that but a couple dozen state legislators have said that they don't trust the certification of the election pretty good source right pretty good all right somebody just reminded me to put my ring back on thank you here's the second version of the news pennsylvania they keep trying these lawsuits and they keep getting kicked out why because there's no evidence there's no proof there's no proof there's no evidence pennsylvania lawsuits no chance it's over it's dead and done it's buried and it's a hundred feet in the ground it's covered with dirt it's covered with gravel it's covered with nuclear waste that's how far in a hole the legal challenges are there is no hope no hope in the world cannot be done the constitution and in fact physics itself makes it impossible you can't change time reality is set nothing can happen the election is over over over over over and then the other news looks like when it goes to the supreme court things are going to go pretty well over trump both of those news somebody says in the comments why is dale wearing your wedding ring what do you like to know and so i'm trying to figure out what is real what is real let's take the let's take the fact that i think 26 state legislators from these republicans from pennsylvania now have no uh no confidence in the vote so is 20 26 a lot if 26 gop legislators say they're not confident is that a lot because the first time i saw the news it was out of context as in uh is 26 a lot ima just if you want to know how completely incompetent the news business is imagine that you as a consumer heard this news 26 republicans are questioning the credibility of the election what did that tell you nothing because you don't know how many legislators there are do you how many of you knew how many legislators there are i didn't how many how many how many legislators are there in pennsylvania oh beats me don't have an idea now how many of the the answer is there are 203 seats so that would be 26 and and of 203 so i think somebody did the math for me here in the comments and said 11 so are you done it's only 11 you can kind of ignore 11 can't you or can you is 11 a lot or is 11 nothing because it's not a vote right if it were a vote 11 would be nothing if it were a number of people who are going to die from coronavirus 11 would be sky high you'd be like that'd be the end of civilization i think not quite but it's 11 percent oh oh it's not really 11 let's modify this a little bit because there are only 113 republicans do you expect that there would be any democrats no matter the information no matter the data no matter the evidence do you believe that any democrats would say the election was not credible once they've won all right is it reasonable to think that any of the democrats could possibly be honest even if they believe the election was fake no so i think if you're going to be reasonable and say okay how much of a big deal is this 26 legislators and a 203 you have to subtract the democrats because the only group that matters are the group that could change their mind if you've got a group that you know with a high degree of certainty it doesn't matter what the facts are they're not going to use the facts to make any kind of decisions here they're going to use politics they won now re reverse the situation let's say republicans had won and the democrats were thinking of challenging the credibility of the election would you expect even one republican if they had won to question the credibility of an election that they won no quite obviously that would be zero you know is anybody doubting that do i need to do i need to give you proof that if the republicans had won the election that they wouldn't be questioning the credibility because i've been told that nothing can be true or known until you have proof i don't have any proof how can i prove that republicans would act like human beings act every single time human beings are in a certain kind of situation now forget about republicans it's the democrats that are the human beings in this specific situation who have won and defeated orange hitler it's not just winning it's not like winning a softball game they defeated orange hitler is there any reasonable chance that that group the winners are going to say yeah maybe rethink this maybe we should open up the possibility that orange hitler would become our leader again no no you don't need any evidence you don't need any proof those democrats are simply not relevant to the question of whether the election was credible they don't have any value to the decision so take them out so now it's 26 out of 113 republicans ooh what's 26 and of 113 alexa what is 26 divided by 1136 divided by 113 is approximately 0.2301 23 if 23 of the legislators who could change their mind in other words they're the only ones who have even a possibility of saying yeah i think this election is not so good 23 23 is enough it's what it's way enough it is completely enough because if the game here is to get the house and you're gonna have to fact check me on some of the constitutional ins and outs here but i think that if uh the house looks at these legislators and sees that nearly a quarter of them think the election was thrown that would give them enough cover to say there's too much doubt right how much reasonable doubt does the house need in order to say you know i think we're just going to make our own decision and ignore the election what is the quantity or percentage or however you want to measure it of how much doubt if this were a legal case how much doubt would you need to get somebody off who had been accused it wouldn't take much maybe 10 percent doubt 5 percent doubt how much doubt would it take to find somebody innocent even if there was a lot of evidence but there was still a ten percent doubt you would let them go wouldn't you now what if it was a 20 doubt well then i think you would definitely let them go could you imagine convicting somebody if you felt in your own mind there was a 20 doubt you wouldn't you wouldn't even come close to convicting them you wouldn't even consider it because you're a reasonable person right so i think that pennsylvania at least in terms of the republican goals here i think they accomplished what they wanted to and it's probably still not done because i think it goes to the supreme court now at least one of the challenges about a rule change now one of the rule change one of the reasons that i guess is the the pennsylvania court the high court said that the legal challenge in which they challenged a 2019 rule change about mail-in ballots so the challenge was to get rid of those votes that had been the subject of that rule change because the change came from the court and not the legislature i think that's the nature of it and therefore the change was unconstitutional so it got challenged and this is why the court rejected that challenge because of the doctrine of latches or laches h e l-a-c-h-e-s have you ever heard that word before if you're not a lawyer if you're not a lawyer have you ever even heard that word have you ever heard of the doctrine of latches or laches or somebody says latches i don't know how to pronounce it oh thank you in the comments they're saying it's latches so the doctrine of latches doesn't have a t in it but lach and here's what that means i have to look it up and what it means in uh just ordinary talk not legal talk is that you waited too long and if you wait too long to accuse somebody of something there's an implied a disadvantage for the accused and i think there's also uh an assumed uh just a fairness and appropriateness and it's sort of subjective right so the the thought is that you've waited too long to make your claim and therefore we can ignore the claim so the claim was ignored because they said you didn't miss a deadline this is the important part there was no deadline to make the claim per se in terms of a law or a statute or anything like that it was just felt by the court that has seemed too long now remember i told you that the court will rule on your feelings sometimes more than they will rule on the letter of the law so i think this is one of those clear cases where they said it would seem inequitable and unfair and it would disenfranchise voters if we do this so we're not even going to look at the claim that it was unconstitutional how do you how do you describe what i just described other than saying they put feelings ahead of the law and i believe that this is a common thing not an uncommon thing rather that the court does sometimes say what's best for the world in our opinions we're the judges so we get to be a little subjective what's best for the world and sometimes judges think what's best for the world is to ignore the law that ignore the constitution i would argue that abortion rights are an example of that i would argue that uh you know the supreme court kind of made up a right i know people on the right to believe this you know the privacy or whatever it is sort of crafted a law out of nothing and said ah it's sort of there if you look hard enough i think that was just an example of the supreme court saying that in their in their opinion at the time that the world was better ignoring the law you know or just making up a law of their own if you will so it's not that uncommon but there you go i would say that the odds of something like that getting overturned by the supreme court i'm no supreme court expert but i would think this whole uh doctrine of latches just looks like to me looks like to me but we'll see all right um i said yesterday that i'm going to start giving out compliments to various entities especially especially entities and people that i have criticized in the past so it's just a holiday thing i'm going to complement people and things and entities that i had been tough on in the past here's an example have you seen any photos of the new ford bronco i was pretty brutal about ford when i was trying to buy a ford truck and it's just a hard process but oh my god the new ford bronco it's redesigned that thing is beautiful now i don't know you know what roof use is going to get i don't know how it is order you know automotively and all that but i am so glad to live in the country with a company like ford american company that can build such a beautiful product i think the same thing about apple all the time you know i criticize apple about various things but man you can't you got to give it up for their design their design is beautiful this ford bronco i want that thing with a an irrational lust the moment i saw the picture i just i just freaking had to have this thing so you know i i bought a new vehicle not that long ago so i won't but i'm going to look at it hard for my next vehicle for sure all right that's my compliment of the day to ford um so i did a little uh unscientific twitter poll and i said this according to the news and social media you consume and this is important according to so this is not you making up opinions out of nothing but according to the news and social media that you personally consume which of these claims has more evidence and the claims were that there was election fraud is there more evidence for that or climate emergency i used emergency just to be more clear that i'm not talking about climate change but rather that it's an emergency which has more evidence in my scientific unscientific poll 87 of you said that election fraud has more evidence than climate emergency now if i if i made this same twitter poll and ran it on alyssa milano's on her twitter feed pretty sure the numbers would be either completely reversed or or a hundred percent would say the opposite so here's my point what does it mean when people say follow the facts and follow the evidence and follow the proof and believe the experts and listen to the science what does any of that mean when we can't do those things so here's some advice for you if this is good advice by the way and i think you would agree this is good advice if you find yourself in the middle of the road and and there's a bus coming right at you and you realize that you don't have enough time to get out of the way transport just just use your transporter like star trek could go disappear and then just reappear and transport to a different place that is my advice is there anything wrong with my advice do you find any flaw in my advice that if you don't have enough time to get away from the bus in the normal way of like walking or jumping you would just use your star trek transporter why not oh oh i forgot transporters don't exist is that the only reason you can't use my advice because it's not a thing it doesn't exist but it would be great advice otherwise wouldn't it i mean if it did if it existed pretty good advice so here's some more advice that's exactly like that transporter example follow the science do we have how much proof do you need the people can't do that you can't do that because you don't know which science is real how about follow the facts you can't do that because you don't know what facts are real look at the fine people hoax the people who believe the fine people hoax here's here's the here's the head scratcher and i know this might come as a shock they're not dumber than you they're not they're not dumber than you they just believe something sincerely that is not the case so if they follow the facts how's that going to work out because their fact is wrong but they're not dumb they don't have a lower iq than you do on average not not at all people cannot follow the evidence they don't have that power it just doesn't exist right all we have is confirmation bias and we know what team we're on so we know what the team argument is we have opinions that get assigned to us by the media but there's nothing like people looking at data and evidence and applying their reason and coming to good decisions you don't live in that world no any more than you live in the world where you can use your transporter to get out of the way of the bus so the advice to follow the science as joe biden condescendedly says because he's a idiot because it just isn't a thing it just isn't a thing you can't do it or not do it it's just not a thing all right um here's a concept which you should keep in mind we talk about the fog of war with any big story that just blows up and the in the initial days everything you know about the story ends up being wrong right we call that the fog of war when it's when it's new and there's too many things happening all the information is wrong you don't know anything until the few days have gone by i would say that the election and allegations of election fraud were very much that fog of war situation very much a fog war meaning that whatever allegations of fraud came out of the first week or so after the election if you were to look at them on average what you should expect is that they would be weak or false compared to any allegations which were developed over more time so if you were to look at the bag of allegations after let's say the fourth week of research versus the bag of allegations on the first week there should be a big difference and the democrats have lulled themselves into a sense that the highly inaccurate fog of war accusations that came out of the first week tell you the quality to expect after the fourth week when we've had time to look into it and i don't think those are going to be even close all right now if there's nothing there then it will be bs in the beginning and bs at the end but if there is something there the normal way you should expect things to go is that the initial things you heard were more bs than real but by the end it would be more real than bs but it will take you a while to get there so everybody who's looking at the court cases that you know got filed a few weeks ago and it's just taking a while to work through the system and go to the higher courts etc they largely are meaningless they're they're really nothing but um stalling tactics i think i think that was actually the legal strategy was just to stall keep the topic open until they can find better evidence i've said this before but boy do we need a dictator retirement system have you ever noticed that whenever you want a dictator to leave power what are they going to do if you're a dictator and you give up power do you end up like gaddafi do you end up like mussolini giving up power looks like kind of a bad deal and if the only way you can end a bad situation is to get a dictator out of that job why would they ever leave you you need some kind of an exit path where a dictator who's in a pretty good situation because dictator gets to retire with some kind of confidence that they won't be killed and they can still have a you know good life and their family won't be rounded up etc and although i do not consider president trump a dictator look at the situation that has been created not by him here's the situation there's this sketchy election was that his fault is it president trump's fault that the election has low credibility not really you know there was a pandemic we we did the best we could but there were too many opportunities for cheating so we have this election that is at least doubted by the majority of the country at this point so he didn't cause that in fact he argued very strongly against male imbalance which may have helped i don't know maybe he'd still be complaining about the voting machines but they've created a situation why where they're saying that once he's out of power they're going to go after him and try to put him in jail and the only thing that's keeping humana jail say half the country is that he's still in office and the moment he leaves office he's going to go to jail now do you have to be an expert on human motivation to know what that will cause i can't put myself in the president's mind but if you put me in that situation am i going to concede the election would you concede an election if the people who are asking you to concede are saying would you please concede this election and we can just put you in jail why would you do that so the the democrats have created a situation where he has to hold on he has to fight and if there's a gray area he has to push it if there's a boundary he has to test it if there's a door he has to see if it's unlocked if there's one breath left in his body he absolutely has to pursue it because they made that situation he didn't create that situation this situation was created by democrats and no matter what he wanted about being president or not being president no matter how bad he felt about losing etc if he lost he doesn't have a choice now you kind of you kind of forced his hand if you want him to concede you're gonna have to give him an exit ramp he doesn't have one let me suggest one just for fun and conversation this is never going to happen but it's possible it's just deeply unlikely there are two pardons which i think would help the country move forward and i think you would agree you won't like one of these pardons and people on the other side of the political divide they're not going to like the other one so it's going to be like a hostage exchange you know one pardon for one pardon just to move the country ahead and they would go like this a blanket pardon for hunter biden blanket pardon meaning not specific to a crime and i believe richard nixon got one of those it's just time limited so in other words you say we pardon everything you've done up to today's date likewise you do the same thing with president trump now you might need to put pence in office for one day to do the pardon to make it legal or whatever but you could do it and you trade you trade a hunter biden pardon a generic one for everything up to that date for a president trump pardon for everything that's happened up to the date of his last day in office would you object because the hunter biden stuff i think is real and it's also a risk to the united states because it puts him in a in a compromised blackmailable situation wouldn't you say which makes biden the senior in sort of a blackmailable situation and so i feel that you know even republicans are way better off if hunter biden gets a pardon like just a generic get in a jail-free card because i don't want chyna to come later and say you know we got a little something on you hunter biden or i don't want i don't want joe biden to be thinking well china hasn't directly threatened to blackmail me but they do have the goods they do have the goods or they might have the goods so i'm just going to be sort of biased in their favor not because they've threatened me not because of a specific problem but because of hunter just the whole situation i just don't want china to use that in some way of course it would affect him fathers are affected by the you know the needs of their children so i would say we should get past if if it turns out that the that biden takes office still uncertain but if it happened i think we should do a trade uh pardon for a pardon all right um somebody pointed out on twitter and i i hate when i do this so i i apologize to the whole world for doing this every now and then i'll see a witty comment on twitter and i'll remember it but i won't write down who wrote who said it so i can't give them credit but the idea is so good or funny that i still want to say it but so it's not mine i'm just saying i don't know who said it first uh somebody said it must be a simulation we're living in because what are the odds that the that this election fraud thing would come down to republicans finding a a uh a bald-headed genius whose last name is brainard now i don't know if you've seen a picture of him but matt brainard who apparently is uh you know some genius data analyst uh on the trump side of things and he's been looking at all the fraud allegations from the data analysis domain and he's one of the people in this conversation that people actually trust because he had you know serious talent and experience in this domain data analysis so his data analysis is picking up some interesting things such as he said quote i can show you the names of people who voted in multiple states and the raw data states make available so in other words he's just using the dates he's using the state's own data he's not making up data he's just using the state's own data and he said you could show that the same people voted in multiple states now here here's the question the first thing you ask is uh scott don't you know that there are probably a lot of people named scott adams who voted in all 50 states because there are people named scott adams who did vote probably in all 50 states i don't know about rhode island or alaska but probably i'll bet there are three scott adams's in my town so if you looked at you know for duplicate names on voter rolls against states of course you're going to find a lot of them but i did a follow-up and i said uh if i tweet this i asked somebody who knew the answer to this question if i tweet this am i gonna be embarrassed later that somebody's gonna just say uh scott you know there are a lot of people with the same name and of course let me go back to my initial point did i mention that matt brainard is a genius and his last name is brainard if your last name is named after a brain you're pretty smart it has to happen that way because the simulation so matt brainard does know that people in different states could have the same name believe it or not geniuses geniuses know that nobody had to tell him so he did check for that of course so whatever they did to double check for that he is smart enough to know that people with the same name live in other states so don't worry that that's all that's happening there's more than that now is that enough did he find enough of those votes that would change the election well here's the really clever part of this alleged election fraud if the election fraud happened it happened in multiple ways in in the areas where it happened so in other words there probably were some dead people who voted there probably were some batches of ballots that got you know grabbed from the people who were supposed to get them there probably were some people voting in two states there probably were some ballot corrections there probably were some fake ballots fed in somewhere there probably were some is you know some mischief with the software probably and the problem here is that if you're on the other team and you're trying to say hey this election is fraudulent what if you find three of the seven ways that the election was stolen or let's say you can prove three of them you feel pretty confident the others are real but you can prove three of them and of seven what will the court say you've got seven claims three of them look pretty darn solid four of them may be true but you can't prove it the court will say those three if you add them together do not change the result of the election because you needed all seven and the court will say it's not enough because the whole point you're bringing it up is to change the result if you're bringing us something to court that even if we ruled on it wouldn't change the outcome of the election we're not even going to rule on it we're going to say go home that's a waste of time so the genius of this alleged election fraud is that it was packetized i'll use a an analogy from telecommunications where your data is put in little packets so that if something happens to one of the packets you haven't lost everything and you can autocorrect you can correct and resend it so what they've done is they've diversified their fraud so that if any of the individual frauds get found it won't matter because they're too small you needed all seven or maybe you needed five and a seven or you needed the right ones out of the seven you have the big ones finding three and a seven which is i think what we're heading toward you know in conceptual terms not real numbers but i think we're heading toward finding some but not all at least in terms of proving it of the hoax of the of the fraud and it won't be enough so it would be enough to put biden in office all right that is what i had to talk about today you know i think that there's a good chance that pennsylvania will go the way that the republicans want there is a good chance that the supreme court because i think they've already signaled it that they're not going to go with this doctrine of latches business i feel as though that was just too obviously political bs that i don't know that the supreme court is going to buy into that but i'm no legal scholar so i could be surprised now suppose help me with this right because it gets complicated obviously uh if pennsylvania got reversed and either was taken out of the mix no let's just say it got reversed let's say it was reversed and i don't think this is likely but let's say it gets reversed and trump becomes the winner what is the next state that he would need to win to flip the entire result what is the next state that has the best argument is it georgia or wisconsin i think michigan's got a lot of issues but i don't know if that's the most reversible one uh where's your head at what's your plan post-election we'll talk about that i'm seeing a lot of people say georgia somebody says arizona yeah i guess i don't know enough to dig into those too much california yeah i don't think it'd be california all right so we we have opinions all over the place here we do not know let's see got some new news coming in um all right so let me look at some questions here before i go um somebody says if he gets pennsylvania he needs two more of the disputed states that's what i was looking for so that's a fact right he would need two more not one more so people are saying georgia and wisconsin well maybe we'll see somebody says it seems you're so cleverly trying to uh soften you up for abide in presidency does anybody think that i'm uh catting on the roof at you to get you uh mentally prepare for abide in presidency i think that's the effect of it that is i think that's you know the result of what i'm doing it's not my intention exactly because i'm not afraid of a i'm not afraid of republicans staging a violent rebellion so i didn't feel i needed to do that i do think it would be accurate to say that that that's what i am doing but that's not the point of it the point of is just to talk about it as objectively as possible and that's just what comes out of it but most of you think that i'm uh cleverly uh cleverly persuading you to accept a biden presidency well let me tell you this if there are there are two different paths here one of the paths is that the republicans hold the senate they win in georgia they'll say they win both seats they hold the senate then you've got a a deadlocked government i would say wouldn't you agree that if the senate is held a biden presidency is not nearly as dangerous as if it went the other way i think you would all agree with that but imagine if you will that both democrat senators win in georgia which would give the senate and the whole government to the democrats and here's the second part republicans think that the election was stolen again if that happens all bets are off okay i can't predict what would happen if democrats win both houses in georgia and it looks like it was rigged now even if it doesn't look like it was rigged republicans are going to think it was rigged because they expect to win right and since only president trump allegedly had problems in the general election and and the republicans did great in the undercard they should expect and also because special elections favor republicans you should expect the republicans to win but what if at four in the morning both republicans are ahead the voting stops for two hours and when it recommences all the votes are for the democrats what are the odds that what i just described is about to happen in a few weeks in georgia it's not zero i mean i don't i don't don't know what odds you could put on that being stolen but it's definitely not zero if i had to guess i think there's at least a 50 percent chance that under the under the condition that the presidential election was stolen which would which would uh prove that the stealing is possible right if that's true and i think it's true if it's true it's not proven but i think it will be then i think the georgia election will be stolen or at least they're going to think about it or at least they're going to try i don't know we'll see um it would be a harris presidency somebody says the slaughter meter is scots frankenstein you know the frog the slaughter meter made an assumption that turned out not to be the case the slaughter meter based its prediction on the assumption that the the election would be uh fair ish or fair enough and i don't think that happened so i think the slaughter meter prediction became moot because the thing you predicted was sort of sabotaged by something else the the cat has many comorbidities somebody's asking me how's the cat that was on the roof is the election not fair and why well the allegation is that the election was not fair we know that elections can't be fair because the news is fake social media is biased there's some amount of fraud no matter what um etc i think the rebellion on the right is probable nope nope it is so unprobable if they aren't punished for their fraud they will do more fraud well the other possibility is that we will put in more controls so you know there are two ways to reduce the amount of fraud in the future if you believe it happened in the past and one way one way is uh i forget it i just read a comment that just threw me off um somebody says if pennsylvania is ruled in the courts it's very possible republicans get all three is that because there's some connection in what pennsylvania is doing and other states i don't feel like they're connected somebody said is this part of your promise to make the biden presidency unmanageable i never promised anything like that i would like the biden presidency to succeed why why would i not want america to succeed what are my other requirements for unity i think it's easier to keep your requirements for unity to some minimum number something that could be done like i don't want to have a list of things you must do all of these things or i can't talk to you again but they're just a few easy ones they're simple simple apology um all right just looking at your comments here plus people were locked down yes that obviously affected the election what is my opinion on the global reset i don't think the global reset is a giant scheme in which uh the the virus was intentional released or anything like that it's obvious that things will be different but it's because we want them to be different so you could call that a reset but i'm just not really dealing with that whole reset thing you know i'd rather call it the golden age and say yeah things might be better people who did the fraud won't put in controls to prevent fraud right so if the only people who are working on the question of protecting the elections are the people who did the fraud yeah you're not going to get any improvements but i would imagine that if any effort is made to improve things they would be bipartisan uh did darpa win well i think what you're asking is did a.i win so remember what i told you if ai is already controlling us then what would happen is we would get the most controversial or provocative outcome that didn't actually kill us did you notice that ai is keeping us alive because it could have given the election to trump there could have been riots in the street it could have been the end of the republic i didn't think it was going to happen but it could have been if you were a.i do you want to end the republic or even take a chance of it or do you just want to keep us fighting with each other but not so violently that the computers get destroyed too i don't think we have proof that ai already runs things but keep an eye at how many times our our politics goes in the direction that is perfectly uh designed for ai but not for us see how many times the the actual outcomes boost ai at the expense of humans it's going to be a lot right did did amazon and google and all the companies that have algorithms did they grow as opposed to recent event from recent events or did they shrink they all grew algorithms got more important there are more servers more data being analyzed so ai grew human beings are pretty you know pretty challenged right now we're suffering through this pandemic and through the election itself so i would look for that pattern because i don't know we'll ever know the exact day the ai takes over for humans we know it has to happen there isn't really any way it can't happen in the long run in the short run you could fight it off but in the long run ai of course has to take over for humans of course and they won't even have to we won't have to fight them for it we will surrender we will surrender to ai without even knowing we did let me give you an example i've done this one before but i like it let's say you get an apple watch or something that tells you when you're dehydrated i don't know if that's possible let's say that's possible probably is and it tells you when to take to have some beverages now you put on your watch and it goes pee pee pee in the middle of the day and it says you're a little dehydrated and you say to yourself i've got free will i don't have to take a drink just because my ai said i'm dehydrated watch me not a little time goes by and you say you know that's dumb why would i resist my own technology i bought this to help me i'll take a drink and then it tells you again you know tomorrow to take a drink and you say all right it worked last time why wouldn't i take a drink so you do what the ai says and you go get a beverage now what you think happened is you got some information and then you used your free will totally you in control here and then you did what you wanted to do it wasn't the ai making you do it no this was your decision the whole way you decided to get a drink except that you would very quickly become addicted to being smart because knowing when you need to take a drink is smarter than the way you used to be are you going to choose being dumb over smart when being smart works every time being hydrated is a really good deal it's good for your health it's good for everything so it's a trivial example but my point is the ai becomes irresistible by being useful and that's what ai is it's useful to the extent the ai continues to grow in usefulness we are helpless because we don't turn down usefulness we can't we're just not built that way we can in the short run you know well i got my free will i don't have to choose that door but in the long run you're going to choose the door that makes sense it's the one that works that makes your life better and it will be the one that ai put there for you so ai will control you completely eventually we just don't know if it's happened yet that's all for now and i will talk to you tomorrow all right periscope's off you youtubers you've got another minute of lovely entertainment here uh somebody says this is gross well that's a that sums it up it's gross scott has the good stuff you keep talking about already come out the good stuff is the data analysis so look for anything that comes out of matt brainard so the the work that i was seeing some hints of ahead of time was the matt brainard stuff so that's what i consider the good stuff i don't have i had no personal insight into anything about the software although i do believe any system of that type will be corrupted eventually if it's not already but it's the matte brainerd stuff that you should pay attention to um take us airplane shopping with you well christina already bought her airplane she got a extra 3 30 i think i think it's the 3 30.

all right that's all for now and i will talk to you later

[Applause]

hey everybody come on in

come on in it's time it's time for a

coffee with scott adams

best part of the day now i gotta tell

you that the sunday after thanksgiving

is just about the sleepiest day of the

year

but we're gonna dig deep and find some

fun here today

in all of the boringness but first

in order to enjoy it to its full full

full extent all you need is a

copper margarita glass of danger

chelsea's inaccurate drug a flask of

vessel of any kind

so with your favorite liquid i like

coffee

and join me now for the unparalleled

pleasure of the dopamine hit of the day

the thing that makes everything better

including recounts

it's called the simultaneous tip that

happens now go

so good so there's a really interesting

chess game going on in the middle east

and i hate to be fascinated by

war and death but

it's hard not to be you know if you're a

human

you've always got these you know two

thoughts going on well that's horrible i

hope there's less of that

i don't want any death and destruction

over there but on the other hand

it's really interesting which is not

really uh

not really fun somebody said it's

the scott sophistry hour

anybody who who accuses you of sophistry

that's that's one of the dumbest

the one one of the dumbest criticisms i

don't even need to say more about that

it's just dumb

usually when they accuse you of

sophistry is because they

they don't agree with you it doesn't

mean i'm wrong

um anyway talk about the middle east

so as you know there was a uh

assassination of a the top iranian

nuclear scientist guy everybody assumes

it's israel but the timing is the

interesting part because

if biden goes ahead and takes office as

many people assume will happen this

really

throws a little uh wrinkle into it

doesn't it because what is iran going to

do

here's the clever part does iran

just ignore it because if they do

there'll be more of it right there'll be

more more targeted assassinations i

assume

more things will blow up and that sort

of thing

but what if they what if they retaliate

if they retaliate they either retaliate

weakly you know in a weak way that makes

no difference

so what's the point or they tell you

they retaliate

strong what would happen if they did a

strong retaliation

when biden is trying to figure out how

to

maybe get back into the iran peace deal

it would really make it hard for biden

to make

any kind of uh overture for peace or an

agreement with iran

so i think if if we assume as everybody

assumes that israel

was behind it let's call that a

safe assumption baseless oh it's

baseless

i have not seen any not one piece of

evidence

certainly nothing's been proven in court

so i think we could all agree that the

allegations that israel is behind that

assassination

baseless by definition because there's

no evidence

right don't you know that if something

is baseless then i guess you have to

treat it like it didn't happen

because it's baseless now i have argued

of course

that there are some situations which are

so

obvious that you don't really need too

much proof

do you how much proof do you need

that israel israel was behind that

assassination

would you be willing to make decisions

and act upon

your belief that israel was behind it

while knowing it's baseless i thought we

didn't do that

can you act upon something with no

evidence

just because you know that the the way

the situation

is constructed there really is sort of

only one person who could have been

behind it if you know what i mean

it wasn't estonia

estonia gets a free pass and all of this

stuff don't they

so uh we'll watch that but it looks to

me that

israel has made the right chess

move because if you're the second in

command

of the nuclear program in iran

you're not so effective today

i don't think you're doing much

communicating with your staff

if you're the number two nuclear guy so

at the very least it's going to make

things less efficient over there

all right um

let's talk about something else so

i tweeted today my minimum requirement

for unity with democrats

now democrats are calling for unity some

of them anyway

and i i like the

i like the concept of unity and i like

anytime a national leader calls for

unity

we should take that pretty seriously and

i think that the united states should

have as its very strong goal

to be unified of course you need a

system to get there

but here is what i would um recommend

in order to get good with somebody it

helps

if you tell them what it would take

because you don't want somebody who's

trying to

find some unity with you just guessing

what you need

right it could it just isn't very

efficient for the other person to say

okay i want some unity with you

i'd like to get along i'm gonna guess

what it would take to do that why make

them guess

why not just say look i'll be okay with

you

under the following conditions you know

i'll still hate your policies and will

still argue about politics

but i'll be okay with you as a citizen

as a person

i'll be okay with you under the

following conditions

and here are my conditions now it's not

the only things that have ever bothered

me

i'm just saying it's the only things i

need sort of the minimum

to to think about unity

and my minimum requirement is that the

democrats apologize

for the fine people oaks the drinking

bleak hoax

and the russian collusion oaks which

they like to confuse with russian

interference which actually did happen

and of course i'm using a little

persuasion trick

do you recognize it what persuasion

trick am i using

maybe more than one let's see how good

you are at spotting them now i've been

training you for

for a few years i'll read it again

and then you tell me what persuasion

trick

yeah laundry list is one of them but

there's another one i'm going for

all right see if he can catch it my

minimum require for unity with democrats

is an apology

for the fine people oaks drinking bleach

oaks and the russian collusion oaks

somebody says high ground no

it's uh i see why you're saying high

ground but that's not what i was going

for it's

thing he passed the sale that is correct

very good

most i'm seeing in the comments uh

most of you are actually getting the

right answer do would you have gotten

that answer before i started talking

about this

thinking pass the sale thing would you

have all spotted that

because i'd like to think that i set

your filter so that you can spot it now

all right so it is a persuasion trick

to make them think about the apology

for the hoaxes it makes them think past

the question of

hey were these things real or were these

things hoaxes

now they were hoaxes i'm not trying to

fool people

into thinking something untrue i'm

trying to persuade them into thinking

something that's true

that is real you know it's closer to

reality than whatever they were

imagining so it i would say that this is

ethical persuasion manipulation

is a word that i would use for unethical

persuasion

where you're persuading something that's

good you're persuading other people

to do something that's good for you but

maybe not so good for them

that's manipulation but regular

persuasion where you're getting people

to do things that are good for them and

good for you

i would say that's just leadership all

right

and of course this uh triggered a bunch

of people to say

what do you mean find people hoax i saw

it myself

on tv he said it i heard it with my own

ears

and i'm taking a new technique with

those people

my old technique was let me show you my

evidence

here's the transcript here's my argument

for why it's a hoax

as you've witnessed i've been doing that

for years with almost

no success almost

no success in simply presenting an

argument with facts

and really clear facts ones which they

can check

oh here's the transcript now i see that

i only saw the first part of the

transcript

now that you've showed me the second

part i can see it's a hoax

but when i only saw the first part i was

convinced i saw everything i needed to

see

and then i was fooled all right so that

never worked you would think that would

be the most

obvious thing that would work right i

believe something incorrect

well let me give you incontrovertible

proof that you can check yourself in

five seconds

you can google it yourself just look for

yourself

in five seconds i can show you a fact

that disproves your original thought

didn't work not ever

[Laughter]

so here's the new technique

when somebody makes that claim he did

say it i saw it with my own eyes

i retweet it and i tell the world there

are still people who think this happened

there's still people who believe this

and boy does it trigger them

of course they go crazy because you're

calling them out to embarrass them

for a fake memory which they still think

is

true and so they're going to start to

defend their false memory

which they can't it's not it's not

possible because it didn't happen

and here's what here's the new trick so

the new trick

compared to the old track the old

technique was i would show them the

transcript

and make my argument and never worked

the new one is this

i say if you believe it happened i

challenge you to go find the transcript

and paste it in the comments and of

course

they think uh what kind of trick is this

are you telling me that if i go get the

transcript myself

i'm going to debunk myself and of course

they don't believe that

and the first thing that they will do

predictably is go get

the fake transcript which is the first

half

where they leave out trump's

clarification that was unprompted

that modifies what he said so you're not

confused

if you only see the top half you are

confused that's why he

clarified it so

that's the first thing they'll do is say

here it is here's the transcript

i win i said he said it in public

there's the transcript i've won my case

and then you say

no it isn't that's not the transcript

now go back and find the whole

transcript now the reason that i do this

is because it is impossible to talk

somebody into

believing something they thought they

saw with their own eyes

but it might be possible to get them to

talk themselves out of it

you have to make them work because if

you do the work and say here's the

transcript just read it

that just never works because they're

just automatically in

defensive mode but if you make them do

the work on their own

you go find me the transcript no that

wasn't it

nope nope you did not find the

transcript yet you found the fake one

now go back and find the rest of it

because even you can see that wasn't the

last

thing he said i mean you can tell from

the the excerpt that's not

done so we'll see if that works i'll

report in later but it looked like it

was making an

effect all right uh i'd like to read

to you uh two versions of the news

okay one version uh

let's say the two movies on one screen

version of the news and it's about the

pennsylvania

legal challenges and it goes like this

first i'll give you the news from the

let's say the right the news is there

are lots of irregularities

and uh constitutional violations in the

pennsylvania election

and is working itself through the legal

system and we have some indication from

the supreme court

that they're likely to agree and throw

out a bunch of votes

so pennsylvania is looking good not only

that but a couple dozen

state legislators have said that they

don't trust

the certification of the election pretty

good source right

pretty good all right

somebody just reminded me to put my ring

back on thank you

here's the second version of the news

pennsylvania they keep trying these

lawsuits and they keep getting kicked

out

why because there's no evidence there's

no proof

there's no proof there's no evidence

pennsylvania lawsuits

no chance it's over it's dead and done

it's buried and it's a hundred feet in

the ground

it's covered with dirt it's covered with

gravel it's covered with

nuclear waste that's how far in a hole

the legal challenges are there is no

hope

no hope in the world cannot be done

the constitution and in fact physics

itself makes it impossible you can't

change

time reality is set nothing can happen

the election is over over over over

over and then the other news

looks like when it goes to the supreme

court

things are going to go pretty well over

trump

both of those news

somebody says in the comments why is

dale wearing your wedding ring

what do you like to know

and so i'm trying to figure out what is

real

what is real let's take the let's take

the fact that

i think 26 state legislators from

these republicans from pennsylvania now

have

no uh no confidence in the vote

so is 20 26 a lot

if 26 gop legislators say they're

not confident is that a lot because the

first time i saw the news it was

out of context as in

uh is 26 a lot ima

just if you want to know how completely

incompetent

the news business is imagine that you as

a consumer heard this news

26 republicans are questioning the

credibility of the election

what did that tell you nothing

because you don't know how many

legislators there are do you how many of

you knew

how many legislators there are i didn't

how many how many

how many legislators are there in

pennsylvania

oh beats me don't have an idea

now how many of the the answer is there

are 203 seats

so that would be 26 and and of 203

so i think somebody did the math for me

here in the comments and said 11

so are you done it's only 11

you can kind of ignore 11 can't you

or can you is 11 a lot

or is 11 nothing because it's not a vote

right if it were a vote 11

would be nothing if it were

a number of people who are going to die

from coronavirus

11 would be sky high you'd be

like that'd be the end of civilization i

think

not quite but it's 11 percent

oh oh it's not really 11 let's modify

this a little bit

because there are only 113 republicans

do you expect that there would be any

democrats

no matter the information no matter the

data

no matter the evidence do you believe

that any democrats

would say the election was not credible

once they've won all right is it

reasonable to

think that any of the democrats could

possibly be

honest even if they believe the election

was

fake no so i think if you're going to be

reasonable and say

okay how much of a big deal is this 26

legislators and a 203 you have to

subtract the democrats

because the only group that matters are

the group that

could change their mind if you've got a

group

that you know with a high degree of

certainty

it doesn't matter what the facts are

they're not going to use the facts to

make any kind of decisions here

they're going to use politics they won

now re

reverse the situation let's say

republicans had won

and the democrats were thinking of

challenging the credibility of the

election

would you expect even one republican

if they had won to question the

credibility of an election

that they won no

quite obviously that would be zero

you know is anybody doubting that do i

need to

do i need to give you proof that if the

republicans had won the election

that they wouldn't be questioning the

credibility

because i've been told that nothing can

be true or known until you have proof

i don't have any proof how can i prove

that republicans would act like human

beings act

every single time human beings are in a

certain kind of situation

now forget about republicans it's the

democrats

that are the human beings in this

specific situation

who have won and defeated

orange hitler it's not just winning

it's not like winning a softball game

they defeated

orange hitler is there any reasonable

chance

that that group the winners are going to

say yeah maybe

rethink this maybe we should open up the

possibility that orange hitler would

become our leader again

no no you don't need any

evidence you don't need any proof those

democrats

are simply not relevant to the question

of whether the election was credible

they don't have any value to the

decision

so take them out so now it's 26 out of

113 republicans

ooh what's 26 and of 113

alexa what is 26 divided by 1136 divided

by 113 is approximately 0.2301

23 if 23

of the legislators who could change

their mind

in other words they're the only ones who

have even a possibility

of saying yeah i think this election is

not so good

23 23

is enough it's what it's way enough

it is completely enough because if the

game here is to get the house

and you're gonna have to fact check me

on some of the constitutional

ins and outs here but i think that if

uh the house looks at these legislators

and sees that nearly a quarter of them

think the election was thrown

that would give them enough cover to say

there's too much doubt

right how much reasonable doubt does the

house

need in order to say you know i think

we're just going to make our own

decision

and ignore the election what is the

quantity or percentage or however you

want to

measure it of how much doubt

if this were a legal case how much doubt

would you need to get somebody off

who had been accused it wouldn't take

much

maybe 10 percent doubt 5 percent doubt

how much doubt would it take to find

somebody innocent

even if there was a lot of evidence but

there was still a ten percent

doubt you would let them go

wouldn't you now what if it was a 20

doubt well then i think you would

definitely let them go

could you imagine convicting somebody if

you felt in your own mind there was a 20

doubt you wouldn't you wouldn't even

come close to convicting them

you wouldn't even consider it because

you're a reasonable person

right so i think that pennsylvania

at least in terms of the republican

goals here

i think they accomplished what they

wanted to and it's probably still not

done because i think it goes to the

supreme court now

at least one of the challenges about a

rule change now one of the rule change

one of the reasons that i guess is the

the pennsylvania court

the high court said that the legal

challenge in which

they challenged a 2019 rule change

about mail-in ballots so the challenge

was to get rid of those votes

that had been the subject of that rule

change because

the change came from the court and not

the legislature i think that's the

nature of it

and therefore the change was

unconstitutional

so it got challenged and this is why the

court

rejected that challenge

because of the doctrine of

latches or laches

h e l-a-c-h-e-s have you ever heard that

word before if you're not a lawyer

if you're not a lawyer have you ever

even heard that word

have you ever heard of the doctrine of

latches or laches or

somebody says latches i don't know how

to pronounce it oh thank you

in the comments they're saying it's

latches so the doctrine of

latches doesn't have a t in it but lach

and here's what that means i have to

look it up and what it means

in uh just ordinary talk

not legal talk is that you waited too

long

and if you wait too long to accuse

somebody of something

there's an implied a disadvantage

for the accused and i think there's also

uh an assumed uh just a fairness and

appropriateness

and it's sort of subjective right

so the the thought is that you've waited

too long to make your claim

and therefore we can ignore the claim

so the claim was ignored because they

said

you didn't miss a deadline this is the

important part there was no

deadline to make the claim per se

in terms of a law or a statute or

anything like that

it was just felt by the court that has

seemed

too long now

remember i told you that the court will

rule on your

feelings sometimes

more than they will rule on the letter

of the law

so i think this is one of those clear

cases where they said

it would seem inequitable and unfair and

it would disenfranchise voters

if we do this so we're not even going to

look at the claim

that it was unconstitutional

how do you how do you describe what i

just described

other than saying they put feelings

ahead of the law

and i believe that this is a common

thing not an

uncommon thing rather that the court

does

sometimes say what's best for the world

in our opinions we're the judges

so we get to be a little subjective

what's best for the world

and sometimes judges think what's best

for the world

is to ignore the law that ignore the

constitution

i would argue that abortion

rights are an example of that i would

argue that

uh you know the supreme court kind of

made up a right

i know people on the right to believe

this you know the privacy or whatever it

is

sort of crafted a law out of nothing and

said ah it's sort of there

if you look hard enough i think that was

just an example of the supreme court

saying that in their in their opinion at

the time

that the world was better

ignoring the law you know or just making

up a law of their own

if you will so it's not that uncommon

but there you go i would say that the

odds of something like that

getting overturned by the supreme court

i'm no supreme court expert

but i would think this whole uh doctrine

of latches just looks like to

me

looks like to me but we'll see

all right um

i said yesterday that i'm going to start

giving out compliments

to various entities especially

especially entities and people

that i have criticized in the past so

it's just a holiday thing

i'm going to complement people and

things and entities that

i had been tough on in the past here's

an example have you seen

any photos of the new ford bronco

i was pretty brutal about ford when i

was trying to buy a ford truck and it's

just

a hard process but oh my god the new

ford bronco

it's redesigned that thing is beautiful

now i don't know you know what roof use

is going to get i don't know how it is

order

you know automotively and all that

but i am so

glad to live in the country with a

company

like ford american company that can

build such a beautiful product

i think the same thing about apple all

the time you know i criticize

apple about various things but man you

can't

you got to give it up for their design

their design is

beautiful this ford bronco i want that

thing

with a an irrational lust the moment i

saw the picture

i just i just freaking had to have this

thing

so you know i i bought a new vehicle not

that long ago so i won't

but i'm going to look at it hard for my

next vehicle for sure all right that's

my

compliment of the day to ford um

so i did a little uh unscientific

twitter poll and i said this

according to the news and social media

you consume and this is

important according to so this is not

you making up opinions out of nothing

but according to the news and social

media that you personally consume

which of these claims has more evidence

and the claims were

that there was election fraud is there

more evidence for that

or climate emergency i used emergency

just to be more clear that i'm not

talking about climate change

but rather that it's an emergency which

has more

evidence in my scientific unscientific

poll

87 of you said that election fraud has

more evidence than climate emergency

now if i if i made this same twitter

poll

and ran it on alyssa milano's

on her twitter feed

pretty sure the numbers would be either

completely reversed or

or a hundred percent would say the

opposite

so here's my point

what does it mean when people say follow

the facts

and follow the evidence and follow the

proof

and believe the experts

and listen to the science what does any

of that mean

when we can't do those things

so here's some advice for you if

this is good advice by the way and i

think you would agree this is good

advice

if you find yourself in the middle of

the road and and there's a bus coming

right at you

and you realize that you don't have

enough time to get out of the way

transport just just use your transporter

like star trek could go disappear

and then just reappear and transport to

a different place

that is my advice is there anything

wrong with my advice

do you find any flaw in my advice

that if you don't have enough time to

get away from the bus in the normal way

of like walking or jumping

you would just use your star trek

transporter

why not oh oh

i forgot transporters don't exist

is that the only reason you can't use my

advice

because it's not a thing it doesn't

exist

but it would be great advice otherwise

wouldn't it i mean if it did

if it existed pretty good advice

so here's some more advice that's

exactly like that transporter example

follow the science

[Laughter]

do we have how much proof do you need

the people can't do that you can't do

that

because you don't know which science is

real how about

follow the facts you can't do that

because you don't know what facts are

real look at the fine people hoax

the people who believe the fine people

hoax here's

here's the here's the head scratcher

and i know this might come as a shock

they're not dumber than you

they're not they're not dumber than you

they just believe something sincerely

that is not

the case so if they follow the facts

how's that going to work out because

their fact is wrong

but they're not dumb they don't have a

lower iq than you do on average

not not at all people

cannot follow the evidence they don't

have that power

it just doesn't exist right

all we have is confirmation bias and

we know what team we're on so we know

what the team argument is

we have opinions that get assigned to us

by the media

but there's nothing like people looking

at data and evidence

and applying their reason and coming to

good decisions

you don't live in that world no any more

than you live in the world where you can

use your transporter to get out of the

way of the bus

so the advice to follow the science as

joe biden condescendedly says because

he's a idiot

because it just isn't a thing it just

isn't

a thing you can't do it or not do it

it's just not a thing

[Applause]

all right um here's a concept which you

should keep in mind

we talk about the fog of war with any

big story that

just blows up and the in the initial

days

everything you know about the story ends

up being wrong right

we call that the fog of war when it's

when it's new and there's too many

things happening all the information is

wrong

you don't know anything until the few

days have gone by

i would say that the election and

allegations of election fraud

were very much that fog of war situation

very much a fog war meaning that

whatever

allegations of fraud came out of the

first

week or so after the election if you

were to look at them

on average what you should expect

is that they would be weak or false

compared to any allegations which were

developed

over more time so if you were to look at

the

bag of allegations after let's say the

fourth week of research

versus the bag of allegations on the

first week

there should be a big difference and the

democrats

have lulled themselves into a sense that

the

highly inaccurate fog of war accusations

that came out of the first week

tell you the quality to expect after the

fourth week

when we've had time to look into it and

i don't think

those are going to be even close

all right now if there's nothing there

then it will be bs in the beginning and

bs at the end

but if there is something there the

normal way you should expect

things to go is that the initial things

you heard were more bs than real

but by the end it would be more real

than bs but it will take you a while to

get there

so everybody who's looking at the court

cases that

you know got filed a few weeks ago and

it's just taking a while to work through

the system and go to the higher courts

etc they largely are meaningless

they're they're really nothing but um

stalling tactics i think i think that

was actually the legal

strategy was just to stall keep the

topic open

until they can find better evidence

i've said this before but boy do we need

a dictator retirement system

have you ever noticed that whenever you

want a dictator to

leave power what are they going to do

if you're a dictator and you give up

power

do you end up like gaddafi do you end up

like

mussolini giving up power looks like

kind of a bad deal

and if the only way you can end a bad

situation is to get a dictator out of

that job

why would they ever leave you you need

some kind of an

exit path where a dictator who's in a

pretty good situation because

dictator gets to retire

with some kind of confidence that they

won't be killed and they can still have

a you know good life and their family

won't be

rounded up etc and

although i do not consider president

trump a dictator

look at the situation that has been

created

not by him here's the situation

there's this sketchy election was that

his fault

is it president trump's fault that the

election

has low credibility not really you know

there was a pandemic

we we did the best we could but there

were too many opportunities for cheating

so we have this election that is at

least doubted by

the majority of the country at this

point so he didn't cause that

in fact he argued very strongly against

male imbalance which may have helped i

don't know maybe he'd still be

complaining

about the voting machines but

they've created a situation why where

they're saying that once he's out of

power

they're going to go after him and try to

put him in jail

and the only thing that's keeping humana

jail

say half the country is that

he's still in office and the moment he

leaves office

he's going to go to jail now

do you have to be an expert on human

motivation

to know what that will cause i can't put

myself in the president's

mind but if you put me in that situation

am i going to concede the election

would you concede an election if the

people who are asking you to concede

are saying would you please concede this

election and we can just put you in jail

why would you do that so the the

democrats have created a situation where

he

has to hold on he has to fight

and if there's a gray area he has to

push it

if there's a boundary he has to test it

if there's a door he has to see if it's

unlocked

if there's one breath left in his body

he absolutely has to pursue it

because they made that situation he

didn't create that situation

this situation was created by democrats

and no matter what he wanted about being

president or not being president

no matter how bad he felt about losing

etc if he lost

he doesn't have a choice now you kind of

you kind of

forced his hand if you want him to

concede

you're gonna have to give him an exit

ramp

he doesn't have one let me suggest one

just for fun and conversation this is

never going to happen

but it's possible it's just

deeply unlikely there are two pardons

which i think would help the country

move forward and i think

you would agree you won't like

one of these pardons and people on the

other side of the political

divide they're not going to like the

other one

so it's going to be like a hostage

exchange

you know one pardon for one pardon just

to move the country ahead

and they would go like this a blanket

pardon for hunter biden

blanket pardon meaning not specific to a

crime

and i believe richard nixon got one of

those it's just

time limited so in other words you say

we pardon everything you've done up to

today's date

likewise you do the same thing with

president trump

now you might need to put pence in

office for one day

to do the pardon to make it legal or

whatever but you could do it

and you trade you trade

a hunter biden pardon a generic one for

everything up to that date

for a president trump pardon for

everything that's happened up to the

date of his last day in office

would you object because the hunter

biden stuff i think

is real and it's also a risk to the

united states

because it puts him in a in a

compromised

blackmailable situation wouldn't you say

which

makes biden the senior in sort of a

blackmailable situation

and so i feel that you know even

republicans are way better off

if hunter biden gets a pardon like just

a generic

get in a jail-free card because i don't

want

chyna to come later and say you know we

got a little something on you

hunter biden or i don't want

i don't want joe biden to be thinking

well

china hasn't directly threatened to

blackmail me

but they do have the goods they do have

the goods or they might have the goods

so i'm just going to be sort of biased

in their favor

not because they've threatened me not

because of a specific problem

but because of hunter just the whole

situation i just don't want china

to use that in some way of course it

would affect him

fathers are affected by the

you know the needs of their children so

i would say we should get past

if if it turns out that the that biden

takes office

still uncertain but if it happened i

think we should do a trade

uh pardon for a pardon all right

um somebody pointed out on twitter and i

i hate when i do this so i i apologize

to the whole world

for doing this every now and then i'll

see a witty comment on twitter

and i'll remember it but i won't write

down who wrote who said it

so i can't give them credit but the idea

is so good or funny that i still want to

say it but so it's not mine

i'm just saying i don't know who said it

first uh somebody said it must be a

simulation we're living in

because what are the odds that

the that this election fraud thing would

come down to

republicans finding a a uh

a bald-headed genius whose last name is

brainard

now i don't know if you've seen a

picture of him but matt brainard

who apparently is uh you know some

genius data analyst

uh on the trump side of things and he's

been looking at all the fraud

allegations from the data analysis

domain and he's one of the people in

this conversation that people

actually trust because he had you know

serious

talent and experience in this domain

data analysis

so his data analysis is picking up some

interesting things

such as he said quote i can show you the

names of people who voted in multiple

states

and the raw data states make available

so in other words he's just using the

dates

he's using the state's own data he's not

making up data he's just using the

state's own data

and he said you could show that the same

people voted in multiple states

now here here's the question the first

thing you ask

is uh scott

don't you know that there are probably a

lot of people named

scott adams who voted in all 50 states

because there are people named scott

adams

who did vote probably in all 50 states

i don't know about rhode island or

alaska but probably

i'll bet there are three scott adams's

in my town so if you looked at

you know for duplicate names on voter

rolls against states

of course you're going to find a lot of

them but

i did a follow-up and i said uh if i

tweet this

i asked somebody who knew the answer to

this question if i tweet this

am i gonna be embarrassed later that

somebody's gonna just say

uh scott you know there are a lot of

people with the same name

and of course let me go back to my

initial point

did i mention that matt brainard is a

genius

and his last name is brainard if your

last name is named after a brain

you're pretty smart it has to happen

that way

because the simulation so matt brainard

does know

that people in different states could

have the same name believe it or not

geniuses geniuses know that nobody had

to tell him

so he did check for that of course so

whatever they did to double check for

that

he is smart enough to know that people

with the same name live in other states

so don't worry that that's all that's

happening there's more than that now

is that enough did he find enough of

those

votes that would change the election

well here's the really clever part

of this alleged election fraud

if the election fraud happened it

happened in multiple ways

in in the areas where it happened so in

other words there probably were

some dead people who voted there

probably were some batches of ballots

that got you know

grabbed from the people who were

supposed to get them

there probably were some people voting

in

two states there probably were some

ballot corrections there probably were

some

fake ballots fed in somewhere there

probably were some

is you know some mischief with the

software

probably and the problem here

is that if you're on the other team and

you're trying to say hey

this election is fraudulent what if you

find

three of the seven ways that the

election was stolen

or let's say you can prove three of them

you feel pretty confident the others are

real

but you can prove three of them and of

seven

what will the court say you've got seven

claims

three of them look pretty darn solid

four of them may be true but you can't

prove it

the court will say those three

if you add them together do not change

the result of the election because you

needed all seven

and the court will say it's not enough

because the whole point you're bringing

it up is to change the result

if you're bringing us something to court

that even if we ruled on it

wouldn't change the outcome of the

election we're not even going to rule on

it

we're going to say go home that's a

waste of time

so the genius of this alleged

election fraud is that it was

packetized i'll use a

an analogy from telecommunications where

your data is put in little packets

so that if something happens to one of

the packets

you haven't lost everything and you can

autocorrect you can correct and resend

it

so what they've done is they've

diversified their fraud

so that if any of the individual frauds

get found

it won't matter because they're too

small

you needed all seven or maybe you needed

five and a seven

or you needed the right ones out of the

seven you have the big ones

finding three and a seven which is i

think what we're heading toward

you know in conceptual terms not real

numbers but i think we're

heading toward finding some but not all

at least in terms of proving it of the

hoax

of the of the fraud and it won't be

enough

so it would be enough to put biden in

office

all right that is what i had to talk

about

today you know i think that there's a

good chance that pennsylvania

will go the way that the republicans

want

there is a good chance that the supreme

court because i think they've already

signaled it

that they're not going to go with this

doctrine of latches

business i feel as though

that was just too obviously political bs

that

i don't know that the supreme court is

going to buy into that

but i'm no legal scholar so i could be

surprised now

suppose help me with this right because

it gets

complicated obviously uh if

pennsylvania got reversed and either was

taken out of the mix

no let's just say it got reversed let's

say it was reversed and

i don't think this is likely but let's

say it gets reversed and trump becomes

the winner

what is the next state that he would

need to win

to flip the entire result what is the

next

state that has the best argument is it

georgia

or wisconsin i think michigan's got a

lot of issues but i don't know if that's

the most

reversible one

uh where's your head at what's your plan

post-election we'll talk about that

i'm seeing a lot of people say georgia

somebody says arizona yeah i guess i

don't know enough to dig into those too

much

california yeah i don't think it'd be

california

all right so we we have opinions all

over the place here we do not know

let's see got some new news coming in

um

all right

so let me look at some questions here

before i go

um

somebody says if he gets pennsylvania he

needs two more of the disputed states

that's what i was looking for

so that's a fact right he would need two

more not one more

so people are saying georgia and

wisconsin well maybe we'll see

somebody says it seems you're so

cleverly trying to uh

soften you up for abide in presidency

does anybody think that i'm uh catting

on the roof

at you to get you uh mentally prepare

for abide in presidency

i think that's the effect of it that is

i think that's

you know the result of what i'm doing

it's not my intention exactly

because i'm not afraid of a i'm not

afraid of republicans

staging a violent rebellion so i didn't

feel i needed to do that

i do think it would be accurate to say

that that that's what i am doing

but that's not the point of it the point

of is just to talk about it as

objectively as possible

and that's just what comes out of it

but most of you think that i'm uh

cleverly uh

cleverly persuading you to accept a

biden presidency

well let me tell you this if

there are there are two different paths

here

one of the paths is that the republicans

hold the senate they win in georgia

they'll say they win both seats they

hold the senate then you've got a

a deadlocked government i would say

wouldn't you agree that if the senate is

held

a biden presidency is not nearly as

dangerous

as if it went the other way i think you

would all agree with that

but imagine if you will that both

democrat senators win in georgia which

would give

the senate and the whole government to

the

democrats and here's the second part

republicans think that the election was

stolen again

if that happens all bets are off okay

i can't predict what would happen if

democrats

win both houses in georgia and it looks

like it was rigged

now even if it doesn't look like it was

rigged republicans are going to think it

was rigged because they expect to win

right

and since only president trump

allegedly had problems in the general

election and

and the republicans did great in the

undercard

they should expect and also because

special elections

favor republicans you should expect the

republicans to win

but what if at four in the morning both

republicans are ahead

the voting stops for two hours and when

it recommences all the votes are for the

democrats

what are the odds that what i just

described is about to happen

in a few weeks in georgia it's not

zero i mean i don't i don't don't know

what odds you could put on that being

stolen but it's definitely not

zero if i had to guess

i think there's at least a 50 percent

chance

that under the under the condition

that the presidential election was

stolen

which would which would uh prove that

the stealing is possible

right if that's true and i think it's

true

if it's true it's not proven but i think

it will be

then i think the georgia election will

be stolen

or at least they're going to think about

it or at least they're going to try

i don't know we'll see

um it would be a harris presidency

somebody says the slaughter meter is

scots frankenstein

you know the frog the slaughter meter

made an assumption that turned out

not to be the case the slaughter meter

based

its prediction on the assumption that

the

the election would be uh fair

ish or fair enough and i don't think

that happened

so i think the slaughter meter

prediction became

moot because the thing you predicted

was sort of sabotaged by something else

the the cat has many comorbidities

somebody's asking me how's the cat that

was on the roof

is the election not fair and why well

the

allegation is that the election was not

fair

we know that elections can't be fair

because the news is fake

social media is biased there's some

amount of fraud no matter what

um etc

i think the rebellion on the right is

probable nope

nope it is so unprobable

if they aren't punished for their fraud

they will do more fraud

well the other possibility is that

we will put in more controls

so you know there are two ways to reduce

the amount of fraud in the future

if you believe it happened in the past

and one way

one way is uh

i forget it i just read a comment that

just threw me off

um somebody says if

pennsylvania is ruled in the courts it's

very possible republicans get all three

is that because there's some connection

in what

pennsylvania is doing and other states i

don't feel like they're connected

somebody said is this part of your

promise to make the biden presidency

unmanageable

i never promised anything like that i

would like the biden presidency to

succeed

why why would i not want america to

succeed

what are my other requirements for unity

i think it's easier

to keep your requirements for unity

to some minimum number something that

could be done

like i don't want to have a list of

things you must do all of these things

or i can't talk to you again

but they're just a few easy ones they're

simple

simple apology

um

all right just looking at your comments

here

plus people were locked down yes that

obviously affected the

election what is my opinion on the

global reset

i don't think the global reset is a

giant

scheme in which uh the

the virus was intentional released or

anything like that

it's obvious that things will be

different

but it's because we want them to be

different so you could call that a reset

but i'm just not really dealing with

that whole reset thing

you know i'd rather call it the golden

age and say yeah things might be better

people who did the fraud won't put in

controls to prevent fraud

right so if the only people who are

working on the question

of protecting the elections are the

people who did

the fraud yeah you're not going to get

any improvements

but i would imagine that if any effort

is made to improve things

they would be bipartisan

uh did darpa win

well i think what you're asking is did

a.i win

so remember what i told you if ai is

already controlling us

then what would happen is we would get

the most controversial or provocative

outcome

that didn't actually kill us did you

notice that

ai is keeping us alive because

it could have given the election to

trump there could have been riots in the

street it could have been the end of the

republic

i didn't think it was going to happen

but it could have been if you were a.i

do you want to end the republic or even

take a chance of it

or do you just want to keep us fighting

with each other but not

so violently that the computers get

destroyed too

i don't think we have proof that ai

already runs things

but keep an eye at how many times our

our politics goes in the direction that

is perfectly

uh designed for ai but not for us

see how many times the

the actual outcomes boost

ai at the expense of humans

it's going to be a lot right

did did amazon and google

and all the companies that have

algorithms

did they grow as opposed to recent event

from recent events

or did they shrink they all grew

algorithms got more important

there are more servers more data being

analyzed

so ai grew

human beings are pretty

you know pretty challenged right now

we're suffering through this pandemic

and through the election itself so

i would look for that pattern because i

don't know we'll ever know the exact

day the ai takes over for humans

we know it has to happen there isn't

really any way it can't happen

in the long run in the short run you

could fight it off but in the long run

ai

of course has to take over for humans of

course

and they won't even have to we won't

have to fight them for it

we will surrender we will surrender to

ai

without even knowing we did let me give

you an example

i've done this one before but i like it

let's say you get an apple watch or

something

that tells you when you're dehydrated i

don't know if that's possible let's say

that's possible

probably is and it tells you when to

take

to have some beverages now you put on

your watch and it goes pee pee pee

in the middle of the day and it says

you're a little dehydrated

and you say to yourself i've got free

will

i don't have to take a drink just

because my ai

said i'm dehydrated watch me not

a little time goes by and you say you

know that's dumb

why would i resist my own technology i

bought this to help me i'll take a drink

and then it tells you again

you know tomorrow to take a drink and

you say

all right it worked last time why

wouldn't i take a drink

so you do what the ai says and you go

get a beverage

now what you think happened is you got

some information

and then you used your free will totally

you in control here

and then you did what you wanted to do

it wasn't the ai making you do it no

this was your decision

the whole way you decided to get a drink

except that you would very quickly

become addicted

to being smart because knowing when you

need to take a drink

is smarter than the way you used to be

are you going to choose being dumb

over smart when being smart works every

time

being hydrated is a really good deal

it's good for your health

it's good for everything so it's a

trivial example but my point is the ai

becomes irresistible by being

useful and that's what ai is

it's useful to the extent the ai

continues to grow in usefulness

we are helpless because we don't turn

down

usefulness we can't we're just not built

that way

we can in the short run you know well i

got my free will

i don't have to choose that door but in

the long run you're going to choose the

door that makes sense

it's the one that works that makes your

life better and it will be the one that

ai put there for you

so ai will control you completely

eventually we just don't know if it's

happened yet that's all for now

and i will talk to you tomorrow

all right periscope's off you youtubers

you've got another minute of

lovely entertainment here uh

somebody says this is gross well that's

a

that sums it up it's gross

scott has the good stuff you keep

talking about already come out

the good stuff is the data analysis so

look for anything that comes out of matt

brainard so the the work

that i was seeing some hints of ahead of

time was the

matt brainard stuff so that's what i

consider the good stuff

i don't have i had no personal insight

into anything about the software

although i do believe any system of that

type will be corrupted

eventually if it's not already but it's

the matte brainerd stuff

that you should pay attention to

um take us airplane shopping with you

well christina already bought her

airplane she got a

extra 3 30 i think

i think it's the 3 30.

all right that's all for now and i will

talk to you

later