Back to episode — Episode 224 Scott Adams - False Memories, Kavanaugh, Peacocks, Lie Detectors, The Simulation
Context —
ood, good stuff. So the big interesting news today is about the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh. The accusations that come from decades ago, thirty or forty years ago, when he was a teenager. There's a woman who alleges that while classmates at a drunken party, he climbed on top of her and tried to have his way with her, and he was pulled off by his friend. What was the name of the friend who…
← Previous segment →ygraph, if that's all you had, we should not let it tell you anything. All right? Passing the polygraph doesn't mean anything. Failing a polygraph might tell you something. It might help you narrow down who's telling the truth. But passing one doesn't tell you anything. I guess the only thing it tells you is you didn't fail.
Now let's talk about false memories. And here's the point where all of you get to be the high-information voters. Hey, yay, you're in the good group. I call you super elite. Super elite. And here's the thing that you know that low-information voters don't know: how common false memories are.
Now, take this situation itself. But how many people have read about this very situation, the accusations against Kavanaugh? No, to keep the current situation, how many people read it and then walked away and had the facts wrong? A lot. There are a lot of people who are on social media talking about this very situation which they just read about, and they already remember it wrong. Do you see how common this is? Just look on social media. You'll see people all over who already remember this story wrong. That's how common it is.
If you were to have a, let's say, a fight on the street, and then one hour later you gathered up all of the witnesses, and individually, so they're not influencing each other, individually you ask them, what did you see? Who started the fight? Give us the details. What were they wearing? You would have stories that didn't even look like it was the same event. It would look like people had watched completely different movies. That's normal. That's normal. If you think it's abnormal, you're a low-information voter.
Now, what about when you and your siblings or your family get together and you talk about details from your childhood? You know, for some of you that might have been thirty or forty years ago as well. How accurate are those memories from thirty or forty years ago? Not those things you think are memories. Our memories are not actually even memories, which is hard to wrap your head around, but it's true. The things you think are memories of your childhood are not memories. There are little illusions which you have created where you filled in the details of something you don't really remember. You remember maybe the broad strokes. You can remember, let's say, you went to the zoo, but you don't really remember what the animals look like. You can't be sure who went with you. You might have your age wrong by three or four years. So all of the important stuff, the details, are manufactured after the fact.
And I'm not saying that it's about a specific situation or about you. The normal way everybody has a sense of memory of the past is they invent it. But that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything. So there are certainly situations in which, if you could go back and check, you would find something true. But are they reliable? If somebody said, I remember an event from thirty or forty years ago, if they say that, how much credibility should you give it?
Now, let's say there was drinking involved and a traumatic event. How likely is the memory accurate? Well, if I had to put a likelihood on it, certainly not more than 50%. I don't think you could actually put a percentage on it, but just in a broad sense, certainly not more than 50% likely to be true. And it wouldn't matter who is telling the story, and it wouldn't matter what it was about. If it was thirty, forty years ago, we would have no way of knowing.
Now, if you're a low-information voter, you're going to say to yourself, oh well, when people have accusations, most of the time, most of the time those accusations are correct. And that might actually be true, because most accusations are fresh and most accusations can be proven by other witnesses and evidence. So it's probably true. Most accusations probably are true. I don't know what percentage, 80 percent, 99 percent. Most are probably true.
But when you go back thirty or forty years, are most memories true? I don't know if it's even most, because it starts falling off really quickly when you don't have corroborating information and you're going back decades and you've been drinking.
So if you've noticed on social media that there's sort of a trap that's been set. So already people are coming after me on social media
Context —
, and I've had to block a few people. So just by talking about the existence of false memory and the fact that polygraphs are not credible technology for memory confirmation, just talking about the science of it makes people say, you misogynist, woman-hating bastard. Yeah, so you can see the forces already lining up against me as well. So that's part of the trap of it. You can't talk about it. You…
Next segment → →