All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 17, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
53:17
Episode 224 Scott Adams: False Memories, Kavanaugh, Peacocks, Lie Detectors, The Simulation
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody!
Come on in. Come on in.
We've got so much to talk about.
Yes, I am on the road.
Savannah and Polly and Nicholas and Don, Richard and Angela and Jeremy, come on in here.
Gather around. We're going to be talking about a few things, but not until we have the simultaneous sip.
It's time for coffee with Scott Adams, and it's time for the simultaneous sip.
Be it coffee, be it tea, be it water, be it a juice, be it in a mug, a vessel, a cup, It doesn't matter.
It's time now for the simultaneous sip.
Join me. Oh, good, good stuff.
So the big interesting news today is about the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh.
Will the accusations that come from decades ago, 30 or 40 years ago when Kavanaugh 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 pulled Judge Kavanaugh, allegedly, off of the accuser.
What was the friend's name?
Judge. His actual name.
So the friend's last name is Judge.
Now what are the odds of that?
And I'll tell you why that actually matters in a minute.
So, yes, I'm on the road.
I'm in Las Vegas at the moment, just for fun.
So, let me give you some context.
Because there are a lot of low-information voters out there on the left who don't understand a few things that you already understand or you're going to in a moment.
So, whether you were a low-information voter or not five minutes ago, You're going to be the highest information voter of all the information voters.
I'm going to take you up to the height of information, on this topic anyway.
So the first thing we must ask ourselves is, what about the credibility of the accuser?
The evidence we have is a memory from 30 or 40 years ago while people were inebriated.
That's the first piece of information.
The second piece of information, she says she took a lie detector test and passed.
The third bit of information is that a reporter for the Washington Post claims that she came to him, or she came to her, the reporter, in July.
So those who are saying, hey, why did she wait so long to come forward?
You can question how long it took her, but she did come forward in July.
So that's the information we have.
Let's look at the credibility of each of these.
Lie detectors, are they credible?
Nope. No, lie detectors are not used in court.
And the reason they're not used is because they're not credible.
So they're not backed scientifically.
What they're good for is when somebody doesn't know they don't work and they're afraid that they might work, you can get a reaction on the machine just because somebody's panicked that you've forced them into a lie.
So, it can be a useful tool if you're, let's say you're checking an entire department and you're trying to find the mole who leaked something, you could probably find somebody in that department.
Who if they knew who the leaker was, they might panic a little bit and maybe you could convince them to give up their secrets because they thought they failed the polygraph.
So polygraphs do have a place.
They are useful in certain situations, but only to narrow down things.
So if you get lucky and somebody panics because they think they're failing a polygraph, you can sometimes, well often, get them to confess.
So it has that value, but as a measurement of accuracy of truth, they don't have a purpose.
Alright, you got that? As a measurement of truth, they don't have a purpose.
Polygraphs don't. Now, there are several problems.
One is that people who believe their own lies can pass.
Secondly, we don't know what questions were asked, if they were the right ones.
Thirdly, if she had a false memory, she would also pass the polygraph because she would believe her own memory.
So the polygraph, if that's all you had, should not tell you anything.
Alright, passing the polygraph doesn't mean anything.
Failing a polygraph might tell you something.
And 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 the 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.
How many people have read about this very situation?
The accusations against Kavanaugh, 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 30 or 40 years ago as well.
How accurate are those memories from 30 or 40 years ago?
Not. Those things you think are 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.
They're little illusions which you have created where you've 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.
Are they reliable?
If somebody said, I remember an event from 30 or 40 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 30 or 40 years ago, we would have no way of knowing.
Now, if you're a low-information voter, you're going to say to yourself, 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%, 99%, most are probably true.
But when you go back 30 or 40 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.
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 is 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 I've proposed that in the context of politics, because politics affects us all, that we employ what I call the 20-year rule.
The 20-year rule goes like this.
If there's an accusation that's over 20 years old, Just ignore it.
Even if it's true, just ignore it.
And the reason is, there's several reasons.
Number one, you can never verify something that's 20 years old.
And number two, We're not really the same people we were 20 years ago.
Yeah, we share a history.
We share an ID with who we were 20 years ago.
We share maybe the same house we had then.
There's a lot of stuff that's the same.
But people aren't really the same people they were 20 years ago.
And it's quadruply true if you're comparing a senior citizen to a 17-year-old.
I don't know how old Kavanaugh is, not a senior citizen probably, but if you're comparing somebody in his late 50s to his or her 17-year-old self, do I really care how horrible the 17-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 20-year rule.
But that didn't happen. Some of you already know that I've had the 20-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 20 years old, they're just different people.
If they've done anything in the last 20 years, then I say, throw it in the mix and let the voters decide.
But if it's more than 20 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.
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 40 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 20-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. 20-year rule.
Here's the next thing. You know, I often talk about this simulation.
The idea that we're not real fleshing 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 1984, 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.
And if our reality that we see around us, you know, that we can touch and drink, if that reality has the same limitations that a programmer would have built into a software simulation, well, they were probably a simulation.
For example, if you built a simulation, you wouldn't let the characters see beyond the edges of it.
In other words, you wouldn't let them get out of the simulation so they could look in and see it.
And sure enough, we've got this universe that's infinite and you can't travel faster than the speed of light and the universe is expanding at the speed of light because the light itself is expanding or is moving in outward directions.
So, you know, it fits that.
We can't get outside the simulation, coincidentally.
We can't see the smallest part of the simulation.
In other words, no matter how good your No matter how good your, what do you call it, microscope is, you can't see the smallest thing.
Oh yeah, we can deduce that there are particles and we can split a particle, but what's the particle made of?
Nobody knows what the stuff is made of.
And if you could find out what the particles are made of, what's that stuff made of?
In other words, everything is made of something else.
But could you keep going down the list of what things are made of forever?
Is everything made of something else?
And would it be an infinite progression?
Because that makes no sense.
So that's one of your signs that you're in a simulation.
Here's the other sign. The other sign is that we would have lots of false memories.
Because if you built a simulation, would you make a real history that existed like for every single thing that happened in the universe?
Would you have to create it and then store it so that in case anybody had a memory that was in conflict with another memory, as we have with Kavanaugh and his accuser, Two people have different memories.
Would the person who made the simulation create a simulation that has in it every fact that's ever happened, just in case there's ever a disagreement?
And then people could say, okay, one of those is true, one of them is not, let's figure it out.
You wouldn't really build it that way, because it would take too much resource.
Instead, you would give people false memories For any situation that can't be confirmed.
That's the important part.
Can't be confirmed.
So if there was an event in the past like the Kennedy assassination, there's a video of it.
That video collapses the reality and makes that the actual shared reality.
And it can never change because there's a video proof of it.
But what about the memory that Kavanaugh did something bad that conflicts with the memory that he did not?
Those are opposites.
It can't be true in our normal universe.
It could not be true that he did something bad while simultaneously true that at the same time he wasn't there and didn't do anything.
It can't be true. But if we live in a simulation, they can both be True.
So in other words, as long as those two competing histories can never be fact-checked, they both exist as true.
As true as anything else in the simulation.
Because the simulation isn't true, it's a movie that's presented to us.
So, in the simulation, It can be true that the event happened at the same time it's true that it didn't happen.
And the only thing that would collapse those two competing memories, the only thing that could turn them into one, is independent corroboration.
Probably not from another person, because another person just has faulty memory too.
It would have to be from a videotape.
Maybe the mother finds a diary page that talked about it.
Maybe there is, you know, I don't know, some weird situation where there's physical evidence.
But in my world, the world that I actually see and perceive and go through life as if it's the real reality, in my world, which I do not suggest you share, Both are true.
That's the actual world that I exist in.
In other words, the perception that I have all the time is that both histories can be 100% true, because neither of them are true.
Meaning we're a simulation.
There's nothing that's true. But if one of them were ever confirmed, it would harden into the history.
And if it's never confirmed without an outside corroboration, the two histories just go on as true.
They're both true forever.
Is this how you landed Christina?
Well, that plus my good looks.
All right. Um...
Now, here's the question.
What are the odds?
Let's go back to talking about false memories.
Remember the coincidence I told you?
That the situation with Kavanaugh is about a judge who's trying to become an even more famous judge.
At the same time, he's being accused of doing something when he was 17 that was stopped by his friend Whose last name is Judge.
Think about that.
The last name's friend, who is the only other person in this reality who's named.
I think there were some unnamed people who were allegedly there.
But of the people who are named, one is a famous judge, and one is named Judge.
Now, if you were going to create a false memory about a judge doing something to you, And it just happened to be that there were two judges in the same story?
What does that do to the credibility of your memory?
Well, when memories are false, they're often suggested by something.
So false memories are not created out of just nothing.
They're usually created out of some experience you've had, something that's suggested.
In fact, the main way that a false memory can be created is through questioning.
So if you were to take somebody in and the person who was, let's say, saying they were accused of some crime or had some experience like a UFO, let's say somebody comes in and says, I think I saw a UFO. False memories can be implanted in that person, the details of that, can be implanted by the person asking the questions.
This is very well established.
There are studies that show you can easily implant false memories by putting them in a suggested form in the question.
So if a person came and said, I think I saw a UFO, here's how you would implant a false memory in that person.
You would say, oh, a false, yeah, a UFO. Was it football shaped?
Was it football shaped?
Or was it disc shaped?
You just implanted a false memory.
Because the person who said they saw the UFO didn't say that they saw a shape, and maybe it wasn't a distinct shape.
Maybe it was a light. But if a person says, I saw a light, and I think it was a UFO, and then the person asking the questions about it says, was it shaped like a football, or was it more of a disc?
Probably you just implanted a false memory.
That's the way it's done.
Because the person who saw the light and was not registering it as a shape hears those two suggestions and says, Yeah, I think it was a little more football-y than it was disc.
Yeah, it was football.
It was football-shaped.
Yeah, it was definitely football-shaped.
And from that moment on, they'll start remembering it as football-shaped.
So this is very well demonstrated.
It's a known scientific process.
It does happen as fast as I just described it.
It's just like that. A false memory can be implanted in a normal person in a routine way that fast.
Hypnists do it all the time.
Now, if you had remembered a story about being attacked and you didn't remember all of the people there, Well, you remember that one of the people there was named Judge.
Let's say that's the only part you remembered.
And somebody says to you, you know, who else was there?
Well, there was somebody named Judge, and who were his friends?
Somebody else was there.
Well, who was it?
Oh, it was Mike Cavanaugh.
See what I just did there?
So the person asking the question planted a false memory.
Oh, I'm sorry, Brett Kavanaugh.
Got his name wrong. So what I just did was I implanted a false memory.
And let me say it again so you see how easily it is.
So if the victim says, In high school, this bad thing happened to me, and I don't remember all the details.
I remember there were four guys there.
Can you remember any of them?
Well, yeah, there was this guy named, his last name was Judge.
I can remember him.
Who else was there?
Now the name Judge is in your mind because it's the only person you can remember.
And by the way, the friend whose name is Judge is not accused of doing anything.
I don't want to start any false memories here.
So the friend is not accused of anything.
And in fact, in her telling of the story, the friend is who took the attacker off of her.
So the person who's named Judge is being remembered as a hero Not as an attacker.
I want to be clear about that. But once that name of that person named Judge is in her head, and years have gone by, and the other person she knew in that class, who may have been at the party, is an actual judge.
Memories conflate.
So the fact that one person was named judge, and that's the one she remembers for sure, makes the odds of her misremembering somebody who is also a classmate and also a judge, the odds of that becoming a false memory skyrocket.
Now, did everybody understand that?
That because the friend's name was Judge, and you're dealing with a very false, or not false memory, but a vague memory, that the person asking the questions, if you got the accuser to say the name Judge, and I'm not talking about the reporter she talked to this summer.
I'm talking about people she told the story to probably over the years.
So it could have been 20 years ago she told the story for the first time.
And she was telling her friend.
And she's just telling the friend, you know, hey, there was these four guys, I don't remember.
One of them was named Judge.
Who are the other ones?
And then suddenly the word Judge is in her head.
And she's thinking of the group of guys.
And there's another one who happened to be a Judge now.
He became a judge. What are the odds that that association would cause her to have a false memory of an actual judge?
pretty good.
So if you don't understand how likely a false memory can be planted, then you're a low information voter.
What are the odds it means nothing?
You mean, what are the odds that it didn't happen?
The odds of some event happening that the accuser experienced an event is probably closer to 100%.
The odds of her remembering it accurately are vanishingly small.
The odds of her getting the main parts important, which is, you know, was it an attack?
Who was involved? The odds of getting those big facts right, 50-50, maybe.
I'd say 50-50.
Um... Yeah, and I'm hearing some stories about Kavanaugh's mom being a judge who was involved in a case that involved the accuser's family foreclosing their house.
I don't know how true that is or how much that matters.
It's hard to know. Now, it's also relevant as we're picking out what's likely and what's not.
What are the odds that the accuser would be a rabid Hillary supporter?
What are the odds? Well, pretty good.
You know, 50-50 or something.
But why is it never the other way?
You know, are we to believe that if a conservative had been sexually attacked that she would not come forward?
Are you wondering about that?
Don't you wonder, don't you wonder, had there been a conservative who had been attacked, would that conservative come forward?
Oh, Anita Hill. But that's also ancient history.
I don't think you can take too much from Anita Hill because that's just too long ago.
In our current climate, you know, our current hyper-partisan climate, what are the odds that it's always Hillary Supporters who come forward.
Roy Moore's accuser was a Trump supporter.
Okay, that's a good counter example.
I will accept your counter example.
I don't know if it's true, but I'm going to accept that it probably was.
Alright, so you saw two examples there.
So if you're asking yourself what is the importance or the relevance of the fact that the accuser was a rabid, I don't know how rabid she was, don't want to read her mind, but she seemed to be a strong supporter of Democrats.
And in the comments we saw two examples where it's not always the Democrat who's making the accusation against the Republican.
So put that in your confirmation bias machine.
Yeah, the whole Keith Ellison situation is surprising.
I don't know the reason for that, do you?
Do you have any idea why the Keith Ellison thing is not making a dent?
And yet everything else seems to?
Yeah, somebody made a comment that's a good one.
Because people believe At least on the left.
People believe that they're on the side of good and that the other side is evil.
Pretty much anything is allowed.
The controls are off.
Talk about your...
There's sort of a...
A check and a control on human behavior because other people are watching you.
Normally the fact that other people are watching you, and you could go to jail for doing bad stuff too, just the social control of people would cause them not to do terrible things.
But we've lost our social control because now people say that other side is a bunch of Nazis.
You can do anything you want to a Nazi.
There's no control on that.
So suddenly you've got a situation where the social controls are off.
Democrats can no longer control each other because they don't see the world the way you see it.
Franken had to step down.
Yeah. Well, Al Franken didn't have to step down.
He just did step down.
If he'd stayed, who knows?
Get to the Coast Guard story.
Yeah, you all saw the Coast Guard story.
There was a Coast Guard person in the background of a video story, and he appeared to give the white power symbol.
Now I saw that, and I could not for the life of me.
Think of anything that could be that wasn't the white power symbol.
In other words, when I looked at it, I thought to myself, okay, whatever that is, it's certainly not natural looking.
It doesn't look natural.
But the fact that I think it doesn't look natural How much does that matter?
It doesn't. It doesn't mean anything.
The fact that I didn't think it looked natural, that doesn't tell me what another person is thinking or why they're doing anything.
It means nothing. Yeah, it could be a troll.
It could be accidental.
It could not look like what it looked like.
could be anything so I think what you can conclude from it is that you can't really conclude anything from it session says that those who suppress free speech should be suppressed Is he talking about the social media companies?
I saw the story that Jack Dorsey of Twitter admitted that conservatives would not feel comfortable at the company, or don't feel comfortable at the company.
And I thought, well, that's an understatement.
But I think it's important that he...
I think it's...
It's important that Jack Dorsey has said publicly he acknowledges the situation because that's the first step to doing something about it.
What has Q predicted?
Do people still believe in Q? Is Q still a thing?
Give me a sense on this periscope.
I know a lot of people who are Q supporters may have stopped watching me.
But say yes or no.
I don't know, how many do you believe Q is real?
I'm looking at your comments.
So look at the comments so you can see your fellow voters.
So I'm seeing about...
Does it look like 2 to 1?
3 to 1? Against Q being real?
Now, all I see is no's now.
All the yes's went away. Well, here's an interesting experiment.
How come all the yes's came first?
And now it's almost a solid wall of no's.
I saw one y. Wow!
Okay, let me tell you what just happened.
Because I don't think you just realize what happened.
Somebody was passing around a story recently, an article, about a study showing how easy it is to change people's opinions with essentially peer pressure.
In other words, they've done studies where I think the study was they would show people two lines and they would say which line is longer.
And if the person was alone, they'd look at the two lines, they'd see the one that's longer, and they'd say, okay, this line is longer.
So when they were not influenced, people could see the reality for what it was.
But as soon as you added some people who were working with the researchers, and the people working with the researchers would say, oh yeah, that other line is the long one.
So the researchers would try to influence the person who didn't know that they were being influenced.
To say something that clearly wasn't, was obviously not true.
The length of two lines.
And it turns out that you can very easily make somebody see two lines differently.
Like right in front of their eyes.
They're looking at two lines.
If nobody's there to influence them, they know one is bigger.
Ah, the big one. If somebody's there in it, and they're pretending they think the other line is the long one, something like a third of them will change their mind immediately.
It's a big number, whatever it is.
So, what I did here on this periscope was, I asked you if Q was real or fake.
Did you see how the answers went?
In the beginning, when I first asked the question, people gave their answer without influence by other people because the other comments hadn't come in yet.
There's a lag. So when I asked the question, the people who believe that Q is real said, yes.
And you saw a bunch of yeses.
Yes, yes, yes. No, no, yes.
Yes, yes, yes, yes. No, yes, yes.
But the more no's you saw, It very quickly collapsed reality until the only answer you were seeing was no at the end.
Did you see that in real time?
It was exactly like the experiment.
As soon as the people who said yes could observe that the people that they would consider peers, essentially, were two, by a majority, probably two to one, were saying no, As soon as they saw it was a 2 to 1 no, it went to 100% no.
You saw that, right? Not 100%, but it went to something like 90%.
Yeah, you watch that in real time.
In real time, You watch people's memories being faked.
Because the reason that people think Q is real is that they have false memory of it, which is a perfect connection to the earlier topic.
Let me explain to you why some people think Q is real, meaning that the predictions are accurate.
Obviously, there's people involved, so the people are real.
But the reason that people believe that Q is accurate is...
is why? It's because they remember accurate predictions.
They remember it.
Now, is it a truth that Q has amazingly accurate predictions?
No. It's not true and can be easily demonstrated as many people have.
They've shown all the examples of Q predictions that were not even close to true.
Now, the people who believe Q is accurate, they simply don't remember the ones that were wrong.
Those are false memories.
They have a false memory Of Q. So if you're asking yourself, here's a perfect example.
If you're asking yourself, how often do people have false memories?
Ask yourself how many people believe in Q. Because everybody who believes in Q got there the same way.
They got there at first because it was interesting and people were talking about it and you know maybe they were a little open-minded at first but over time they came to believe that the predictions were spookily accurate and that hardened their belief that it was real but those were not real memories those were false memories they simply just didn't remember the ones that weren't real and when there was a vague one Other people would say, that's not vague, that's right on.
He nailed it.
He said something vague, sure, but once you see the real result, you know it wasn't vague at all.
So, Q is a false memory phenomenon.
You can tell how easily false memories are embedded by looking at the Q situation.
It's a false memory phenomenon.
I know those of you who are still pro-Q are having a tough time with this.
I'm not making fun of you.
And this has to be really clear.
I am not making fun of Q believers.
Because having false memories in this kind of a context is 100% normal.
A hundred percent normal.
In fact, if you would describe to me this situation, and let's say I'd never been involved with it, never heard of Q at all, and somebody came to me and said, hey, there's somebody who claims they're making predictions, and they're making lots of predictions, and some people say they're not coming true, but other people are convinced that they are.
Tell me what's happening.
If that's all I knew, I would say, oh, that's a completely normal situation.
You're talking about false memories.
The people who don't see it are always the ones with the better memories.
The people who do see something, the accuracy in this case, are almost always the ones with the hallucination, the false memory.
So if you see somebody claiming something is clearly true, And somebody else looking at the same stuff, and this is the important stuff.
The important point is they're looking at exactly the same evidence.
They're in the same room.
And one says, there's a giraffe standing right in front of me.
And the person right next to you, same room, same time, is looking around and saying, there's no giraffe in this room.
Which one of them is right?
It's always the one who doesn't see the giraffe.
Right? Q is a phenomenon where some people see it as clear as the nose on their face.
And other people look at the same stuff and they don't see it.
Which is true. It's always the one who doesn't see it.
So now, if you take the Kavanaugh story and compare it with the Q situation, you can see that the dominant element is common to both those stories.
False memory is so pervasive And so normal, and it's so the context of our existence, that when you see how many people believe in Q, that tells you how easily people can have false memories.
And remember, the Q false memories are all within the last three years.
Whether or not the accuser has a false memory, we cannot know.
But the odds of it being a false memory go through the roof when your 30 years passed.
Alright, will Kavanaugh get confirmed?
I say yes.
So here's my prediction.
Kavanaugh will get confirmed.
If Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed, there will never be another Supreme Court justice.
I'm probably overstating it.
But if Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed because of this, there might be something else that comes up.
But if it's because of this, then I don't think there will ever be another Supreme Court nomination that gets all the way through.
Because there will always be something as good as this.
So I'm guessing that the adults in Congress will decide, yeah, I'm guessing that the adults will decide that they can't run a country with this standard.
And it is, it is, does it seem to you that it's a tremendous power shift from male to female?
I know most of you are saying, duh, because it's so obvious.
But this situation with Kavanaugh appears to me a tremendous power shift.
Because now that it's clear that this can happen to essentially anybody who is male, but probably can't happen to a woman, it's sort of the perfect attack for women.
So if you're a woman, and you think women don't have enough power in society, and you'd like to see more of it, and I think that describes a lot of people.
This is the best way to do it.
Because women are largely immune from this.
Not 100%, but largely immune.
And so, if Kavanaugh goes down because of this, independently of whether something really happened or not, that almost won't matter.
It will make it impractical to be a male nominee to the Supreme Court.
You might actually have Supreme Court nominees who are male, who are aware of nothing that's a problem in their life, just say, I don't want to lose my marriage.
There might be people who are nominated for the Supreme Court who are male, and they talk to their family, and the wife says, look, if you go through this nomination process, our marriage is going to be just totally screwed, because somebody's going to come forward.
That's how it works now.
Those are the new rules.
So, I don't know if men can run for office.
I can tell you that in my case, I would not run for president in the current situation.
I wasn't planning on it anyway, but if I were, let's say, if I thought I, well, I would win.
If I ran for president, I would definitely win.
By the way, how many of you think that if I ran for president, I would win?
And let's say not against Trump, because I couldn't possibly win against Trump.
How many of you think that if I ran in 2024, I could win if I was just all in?
I just wondered how many think I could.
So it looks like you're kind of split, but a lot of people think I could.
So, the reason that I predicted that Trump would win was based on his skill set, not on his policies.
My skill set is not as good as his.
But, if I ran for president, it would be better than whoever I ran against.
So, I would have the best skill set in the competition, by far.
I wouldn't even be close. But that's not all it takes to win.
We still need a lot of other qualities.
Alright. I'm not going to run, so it doesn't matter.
But anyway, I would say...
I hate to say this, but I'm going to say it anyway.
If you're a man, and you're being considered for the Supreme Court or running for president, it's probably a bad decision.
It's probably a bad decision, because you're going to be ruined.
Trump is a unique character because it doesn't seem to matter what we learn about his past.
It just doesn't make any difference.
I think Kanye would have the same quality.
If you found out things about his past, you'd say, well, it wasn't a big surprise.
Oh, me and Candace.
That would be an interesting package.
Imagine me running for president with Candace Owens as my vice president candidate.
I think Candace would have one problem with that plan.
What would Candace's problem be?
What problem would she have being on a ticket with me, me as president and her as vice president?
Because she should be turned around.
She should be running for president.
But we'll give her a few years before she's ready.
All right. You would have to choose a party.
I would. I would have to choose a party, and I would.
And I could win in either party.
Now that's not true. That used to be true, but now it's not true.
I could win as a Republican, but I couldn't win as a Democrat.
Short and bold. Sorry.
Ah, those days are over.
You know, the height and the hair used to make a bigger difference.
But now persuasion tools are more important, I think.
Alright, that's all I've got to say for now.
I'm going to let you go and get back to your day.
Get back to your day. Nice talking to you.
▲
Export Selection