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

Context —

e it's good for their careers. And then they give the management these fake numbers to say it works. And then what does the CEO do with that? Suppose the CEO doesn't believe it. Suppose the CEO says, you know, they would have bought this much anyway. I don't think you did anything. Would the CEO say that? Or would the CEO say, as all CEOs do, well, it looks like under my management we went up this…

← Previous segment →

ead. It's brilliant writing. It's really good.

And then the second part, he uses the word "jabbered." He jabbered for seven minutes. Now of course this is highly biased political writing, but you know it's on Fox News. You expect that in the opinion pieces on both CNN and Fox. You know, if it's an opinion, it's an opinion. So you can say jabbered. But jabbered is a great word. Jabbered. Because you don't have to defend jabbered. You can just say it happened and people go, well, he sounds like he was jabbering. You don't have to give any examples of what a jabbering is.

All right. So I had an experience yesterday of talking to someone who shall remain nameless, but let's say it's someone who knows a lot about the world. So somebody who's really well educated about how things work, right? So I'm not talking to a dumb person. So keep in your mind: smart, super accomplished person supports Biden. And we got into a little conversation about that, about supporting Biden. He's a big anti-Trumper. And I was curious about why anybody could do that. Like what's the thinking? And I had predicted on Twitter maybe a week or so ago that we would hear more and more tortured explanations of why anybody would support Joe when it's obvious his mental health is declining. I mean, it's really obvious, right?

And here was the first cognitive dissonance example. Or it's true, so you get to decide. So my judgment of it is, or it looks a little cognitive, doesn't it? See, no it's not. You're not going to guess who it is. It's not somebody I've mentioned before. So if you're guessing somebody that I've talked about, just forget it. You're not going to guess. It doesn't matter anyway.

And here was the following thing. Objectively true, so you decide. Does this sound like crazy talk, which would be a tell for cognitive dissonance, or is it a perfectly reasonable statement? Here it is: Joe Biden is actually smart and capable when you talk to him in person. It's just that when he does things in public, he's sort of lost a step. So he can't keep up. You know, in a public venue he can't really keep up anymore. But there's no problem because if you talk to him in person, he's perfectly fine. Brain's all there. Everything's working.

Trump, on the other hand, goes the story that he might look like he can function in public, you know, at least to his supporters. I mean, it looks like he understands the topics and has full control of things. You know, I mean he's always Trump, but it looks like he does have full control of his faculties and he's operating at a high level in public. But the story goes that in private it's completely different.

So one version of what's going on here is that Joe Biden is this unique character who's smart privately but only recently he's become incompetent in public. But you shouldn't worry about that too much because he's fine personally. He's fine. Whereas Trump, and here's a weird coincidence. What are the odds that Trump would be the opposite? And that Trump would be perfectly functional in public, if you don't count what the fake media says he's saying. You know, if you believe he suggested drinking bleach, well then you think he's not competent. But of course that didn't happen. That's just what the media said he said. So if you ignore what the media said he said and just look at what he says, perfectly reasonable. But behind closed doors, not so much.

Now, as you know, I spent a little bit of time talking to the president in a personal conversation. I did not detect anything wrong with his brain. All right? So I have only this much experience, and we weren't talking about any kind of businessy or policy things, so there wasn't anything complicated about it. But I feel like I would have detected a problem. You know, we talked about enough things, a broad enough palette of things, that I would have picked up. I'm sure I would have picked up a little problem if there was one. I didn't see anything. I didn't see anything I even questioned, like why do you say that? Or nothing like that. Perfectly ordinary, functional person like most of us.

So look for further stories about the explanation of why people are okay with Biden. And at least people are saying directly, yeah, we think maybe he did do that thing with Tara Reade. We don't like it, but boy we really don't like Trump. So in other words, they're throwing their principles to the side to get a better result.

I got into this discussion with a professor of biology on epidemiology. Now if you've been following along with my Periscopes for a while, you probably already know where t

Context —

his is going to head, right? So I had a little bit of, I won't call it disagreement. I was confused at what Carl Bergstrom was saying on Twitter. Seems like a real well-informed, smart guy. And he was doing a real good job of explaining stuff. He was explaining specifically that the purpose behind flattening the curve, and his point was that the purpose is not just to keep people out of the hospit…

Next segment → →