Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive July 2, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

one of the day, as far as you know. All right, let's talk about something interesting for a change. How would you like that? It's a big change, I know. But apparently China — I saw one report on this from the Spectator Index Twitter account — and it says that China will limit minors to playing online games to just three hours a week, with services limited to an hour each Friday, Saturday, and Sun…

← Previous segment →

ings and just destroy themselves. But every now and then somebody is the Wright brothers and they create a flying machine. So there's something about the permissiveness of our system that allows creativity to come out. And so far that's been the difference. The biggest difference is creativity.

Now somebody says capitalism, but I think they have a lot of that advantage in China as well at the moment. Yeah, so I think invention and risk-taking are our only enduring advantages. And we'll see if that's enough.

Here's some prediction tracking. Now I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to keep reminding you. One of the ways that you can predict is by assuming that people act the same all the time. Okay, you can't trust people to tell you the truth. In fact I would say you shouldn't trust anybody or you shouldn't trust anything that anybody says just automatically. Here's what you can trust. Are you ready? This is like a really, really important reframing. So every now and then I'll make a little statement that could change your life entirely. This is one of them. So just pay attention to this. Some of you, this will be life-changing. It really will.

You can't trust what anybody says. Let's start with that. Now I know you're going to say to yourself, well I can trust some people. No, wait for the reframe. You can't trust anything that anybody says is true. Just start with that to protect yourself. Now you have to make decisions, right? You still have to live in the real world. You still have to decide what to do. And so part of that decision-making is figuring out who's telling you the truth or not.

Here's what I would say. Instead of trusting what people say, which you should never trust, trust that people will be the same as they always have. Trust that the person who's giving you the information is the same person they were yesterday. That you can usually trust. It's not a hundred percent. Nothing is, right? But trust that people will be the same as the last time that you dealt with them. So it's sort of the Maya Angelou thing, you know. When somebody shows you who they are, believe them the first time, because it's coming back. Right? You're going to see them acting the same way again. So if you don't believe it the first time, you're going to be surprised.

All right, so here's how this works. If you're gonna look at the Arizona audit situation and you're trying to predict where it's gonna go, can you say that anything that anybody said about it so far you should trust? No. So if there are people who said the audit has found nothing, should you trust them? No. How about the people who told you, oh there's definitely something there? Oh wait, wait, do you see what we got? Should you trust them? No. No.

So the two things you shouldn't trust at all is people saying they definitely have some stuff and they'll show it to you later, and people who say they definitely don't have any stuff because there's nothing there. Don't trust them. Now use the reframe and trust that people will act like people. Okay, so that's your reframe. People will act the way people have acted before.

If you have a big complicated audit and it's full of people, and people are blabbers — are people who have always been blabbers going to stop being blabbers suddenly? No. No. You can trust the human beings will have an X number of blabbers. People who will talk about things they're not supposed to talk about in any large group. Every time. You don't have to wonder if this large group of auditors had any blabbers in it. Of course it did. One hundred percent chance there were blabbers. Where are the blabbers telling us that they've already found the stuff and my God you won't believe it and here's the area in which this fraud has been found? No blabbers. No blabbers.

So my prediction is that because people are always the same, if the Arizona audit had found stuff there would be plenty of people who knew about it and some of those people — not all of them, some of them — would be blabbers. You would know by now, right? So I'm gonna take this as a prediction technique. Doesn't mean it predicted right this time, right, because everything is about the odds. But the odds are there's something with this many people involved. People are the same everywhe

Context —

re all the time. They're the same as they were. They're not the same as each other. They're the same as they used to be. And they used to be blabbers. Nothing changed that. If you haven't heard anything, what are the odds that there's something there? Every day that goes by and you don't hear about it with some specifics, the odds of anything being there go way, way, way down. Now it doesn't mean…

Next segment → →