Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive August 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

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 y…

← Previous segment →

, 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 can't even talk about the technology of it. You can't talk about the likelihood it's true. None of that.

Now let me talk about a related topic. I have proposed that in the context of politics, because politics affects us all, that we employ what I call the twenty-year rule. The twenty-year rule goes like this: if there's an accusation that's over twenty years old, just ignore it. Even if it's true, just ignore it. And the reason is several reasons. Number one, you can never verify something that's twenty years old. And number two, we're not really the same people we were twenty years ago. Yeah, we share a history. We share an ID with who we were twenty years ago. We share, you know, we share maybe the same house we had. There's a lot of stuff that's the same. But people aren't really the same people they were twenty years ago. And it's quadruply true if you're comparing a senior citizen to a seventeen-year-old.

I don't know how old Kavanaugh is. Not a senior citizen probably. But if you're comparing somebody in his late fifties to his or her seventeen-year-old self, do I really care how horrible the seventeen-year-old self was? Well, I care if there was a victim. If there's a victim involved, we can care about the victim, of course. But it's not the same person. It's just not the same person.

And before you say, well Scott, before you say this to me, oh Scott, isn't that convenient that just when the person that Mr. President Trump likes gets accused of something, now you say let's have the twenty-year rule. But that didn't happen. Some of you already know that I've had the twenty-year rule for some time now. And I say that Hillary Clinton benefits from it. I don't care what she did with Whitewater or anything else. Just don't care. If it's twenty years old, they're just different people. If they've done anything in the last twenty years, then I say throw it in the mix and let the voters decide. But if it's more than twenty years ago, I say it doesn't really matter if it's true. It's just not the same person. You're accusing somebody, you know, a third party for all practical purposes.

And then somebody says, let's let Bubba off the hook. Yeah, so I would apply the same standard to Bill Clinton, to anybody. Now, part of this is self-preservation, because when it comes to politics, if you didn't allow anybody into the job who had a spotty record from forty years ago, you just have to clean out the whole Congress. And who knows how many accusations from that time would even be true? So as a practical matter, you can't really run a country that way. You can't really run a country with twenty-year-old accusations against everybody who comes through, because it's going to be everybody. It's just going to be everybody.

So I would say, first of all, I would apply the standard to Kavanaugh. I would apply it to Bill Clinton. I would apply it to anybody you want to apply it to, both sides. Twenty-year rule.

Here's the next thing. You know I often talk about this simulation, the idea that we're not real, flesh and blood, but that we were created by some earlier species and we think we're real but we're actually some kind of a software simulation. And you know the argument for that, which is if anybody could create one simulation, they probably created lots of them. So it's very unlikely that we're the original, when the odds of so many simulations being created by now is so high.

So here's the evidence you look for to find out if you're part of a simulation. And I believe, I think I'm the author of this idea. I've never heard it anywhere. But every time I say I have a new idea, somebody always says, oh that's in that sci-fi book from 1

Context —

984. You stole that idea. So I don't know that this is an original idea, but I'm pretty sure I didn't hear it anywhere. So if you've seen it somewhere in a book, let me know. And the idea goes like this: that there is a way for us to determine if we are real, like an original species, or a simulation. And the way you could do that is by looking at how we alleged humans do software development. An…

Next segment → →