Episode 2057 Scott Adams: Trump Arrest Or Hoax? TikTok Hearing, Bell Curve Ridiculousness, Ukraine
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Trump arrest or hoax?
TikTok hearings
The poor man's Obama speaks out
The bell curve ridiculousness
Ukraine is a tie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to the Highlight of Civilization.
It's called Coffee with Scott Adams, where all the controversy and good opinions happen.
It's a good thing you're here, because anything could happen today.
We're going to be flying even closer to the sun than ever before.
And if you'd like to enjoy this trip, it'll be quite an experience.
All you need is a cupper, a mugger, a glass, a tanker, chalice, or sty, and a canteen jug or flask, a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee.
And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure of the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
It happens now.
Go.
Ah.
All right, we're going to take locals private.
And so I just saw a story before I came live here that There's some talk in the Biden administration that although Kamala Harris is highly qualified, highly qualified, some people in the administration, maybe Biden, thinks that she hasn't exactly risen to the occasion as often as she should.
Or ever.
So I guess the whisper campaign is starting.
Kamala, she will not last.
I don't think that's a good sign for her being vice presidential, can't think.
Well, Rasmussen did a poll on trusting experts, and half of the 50% of likely U.S.
voters say that the way the government handled COVID makes them less trustful in public health officials.
Does that sound right?
After watching the pandemic, does it sound right that only half of the country is less trusting?
Only half?
How could it be only half?
What pandemic were they watching?
All right, well, let's see.
How about the media?
Yeah, 53% of people said they trust the media less.
That makes sense.
But only 53%?
Is that because people already didn't trust the media completely?
So there was no place to make it worse?
All right.
But let's see if I can poll the smartest people who have ever watched a live stream.
What percentage of the polled people say the pandemic coverage made them trust the media more?
Who became more trust?
Oh, wow, you're good.
Yeah, very close.
23%.
23% of the public said, you know, After watching how the media performed in the pandemic, I trust them a lot more.
Yeah.
Yeah, they nailed it.
Wow.
I was sitting at home not knowing what to do, and the news just kept hitting it and hitting it, and I mean, they could not have been more accurate in their reporting.
Well, that's consistent.
Well, in the news today, either Trump was arrested or none of that was ever real.
What do you think?
How many are going to vote for there was never going to be an arrest?
And how many vote for, well, there might be, maybe later, where they change their mind?
I don't think it was totally a hoax, or a prank, or a play.
My best guess is that it's delayed while they're trying to make up their mind.
There's probably some infighting.
So I would say delayed.
But potentially cancelled.
I don't think it's cancelled yet.
We probably know.
But I got a feeling that the public pressure made a difference.
It feels like it.
Maybe not.
Maybe it's just an ordinary delay.
Things get delayed for ordinary reasons.
In fact, if I had to guess, the most likely explanation for the delay would be that it was just an ordinary problem.
You know, because everything gets delayed.
In what world do things happen on time?
Never really.
So the fact that it didn't happen on time, or even that it could be a week or a month late, that's just like everything else in the world.
So I'm not going to say that it looks like a hoax.
I'm just going to say it looks delayed.
I don't think the Costello letter makes any difference, honestly.
You know, I think people saw the The new document that came out, which was Michael Cohen's own lawyer, saying that Michael Cohen said that he paid it out of his own pocket or something.
But I don't think that's going to make a difference.
Because that's still just a claim by a liar.
It doesn't matter how many additional claims are made by the same liar, there's no credibility.
So it doesn't matter how many things he says.
Or when.
Alright, Wall Street Journal reporting on Ukraine.
What do I say before I talk about Ukraine?
Everything coming out of Ukraine is undependable and non-credible.
So if I say one day, it looks like Russia is winning, that doesn't mean anything.
Because the very next day I might say, well it looks like Ukraine is winning, just based on the news.
We have no idea what's happening over there.
You and I have no idea.
It's interesting to know what the news is reporting, because you can tell who's lying to you or who's bad at reporting the news.
But the latest is that, surprise surprise, Ukraine is also facing challenges, according to the Wall Street Journal, in raising troops.
So it looks like it might be a human attrition problem even more than equipment.
So Russia seems to have an equipment plus human problem.
Ukraine has at least a human problem.
Probably equipment problems.
So it looks like they're just going to fight until it's two Monty Python knights facing each other with no arms and no legs.
And then anybody who wants to can just go push him over.
I feel they just have to punch themselves out.
And unfortunately, It will probably end when there's no humans left to shoot stuff.
Or there's so few that they can't.
The weirdest thing about Ukraine is that they're fighting over this city called Bakhmut.
Am I saying it right?
Bakhmut.
And here's what we know about it.
The city was destroyed, and then some people controlled it, and then some other people controlled it, but it's still destroyed.
What exactly is the whole point?
Of conquering a city that doesn't exist anymore.
Is it strategic?
I mean, the things they're fighting over are just ridiculous.
I mean, territory, sure.
But it's such a ridiculous fight.
They're fighting over scraps.
There weren't scraps until they were fighting.
The absurdity level is just... I suppose war is always absurd on some level, but this is a pretty high absurdity level.
Well, how many of you saw any of the clips from the TikTok CEO testifying to Congress?
It's the first time I've ever felt good about Congress, because I have to say that both the Democrats and the Republicans, number one, they were unified in their criticisms of TikTok.
Good to see that, you know, when there's an external threat.
America can still come together.
You kind of wonder, don't you?
You wonder if we could come together over anything?
And sure enough, we did.
Second thing I'd like to compliment the people who participated in Congress.
They looked very prepared.
Did you notice that?
I thought everybody came, you know, loaded for the hunt.
Democrats, Republicans, and honestly, I couldn't even tell who was who.
I could not tell who was the Democrat and who was Republican unless I already knew them.
They all looked well-prepared, really strong on the issue, seemed to know all the details, pushed in exactly the right places.
And what I saw was a massacre.
That CEO just got massacred in public.
I mean, he did the best he could, but there wasn't much he could do.
Because the facts were just not on his side.
And he used the, well, thank you, Representative.
I'll have my team look into that.
I don't know.
Well, is it true that you do X?
Well, I can't speak to that, but I'll research that and get back to you.
Do you think that he got back to anybody with anything?
Do you think that's going to happen?
And why would he, really?
I mean, why doesn't he just promise he'll get back to him and just not get back to him?
I feel like that's what's gonna happen.
Glenn Greenwald says the government wants to control TikTok 'cause they can't control it like they can control the other stuff.
Maybe.
That might be part of it.
That's not the whole story, though.
Here's what I saw.
I thought of all the people who asked TikTok questions, I thought Dan Crenshaw was the standout.
Because the difference between when Dan Crenshaw was talking to the CEO of TikTok versus a lot of the others, he was very clear on the risk not simply being data security.
The real risk is that they can influence American opinions.
Now, Crenshaw did that really well.
In other words, he understood the big risk and he put it in context.
The others, less good at that, but they all had good points.
So I'm not sure everybody had to make the entire case like he did, but they all made individual good points about problems.
I guess I have, this is the one time I can look at a congressional performance and say, I don't have any complaints about it.
Did you have the same experience?
Every once in a while you have to pause.
You have to pause and say, okay, they did that well.
That was just Good, solid, patriotic, America first stuff.
Now that's not every member of Congress, right?
So there's always some crazy person that the lobbyists got to or something.
But good job.
What do you think is going to happen?
Do you think Congress will act on it in a way that is consistent with... No, I don't think so.
I think they put on a good show.
And then they're not gonna do much at all.
I suspect that they will not ban it.
Or they'll put it to another committee to talk about it some more.
Or they'll try to get TikTok's solution where there's some American control and act like that's good enough.
Something like that.
I just don't have confidence that they can execute.
I do have confidence that they asked the right questions, so they're good at, you know, showboating in front of the public.
They did that pretty well.
I'm still seeing people say, in response to the TikTok thing, you see it on social media, people are still saying, what's the problem?
TikTok is gathering information, but that's what they all do.
Have you seen that?
How could you be more confused about what's the problem?
You know, Somebody said, what's the difference between Facebook and TikTok?
What's the difference?
They both collect all your data.
And I think the fact that China owns one of them seems like, how could you miss that important part?
Yeah, it's almost like a willful ignorance.
Like, I don't want to know the argument against TikTok because I really like TikTok.
All right.
And then the other bad argument is that small businesses depend on TikTok.
All of those functions would just move over to somewhere else, like Instagram or Snapchat or something.
So it's not like it goes away.
They would just move their spending dollars from a Chinese company to an American company.
I mean, I can't imagine it would be that different.
In the short run, it might be a little different.
But in the long run, not so much.
And then I saw a semi-defense of TikTok, if you could call it that, on CNN.
Now, to their credit, CNN seems to be covering the risk of TikTok accurately.
So I'm going to give CNN a little credit, too.
They are treating TikTok like a danger.
So good for them.
They're not just automatically taking the opposite position of Fox News.
So I'm happy about that.
But they did let an opinion person go on to say that there's no evidence whatsoever that China has done anything bad regarding TikTok.
So really your concerns about TikTok are about future problems.
Don't you understand that there's no evidence that China has done something bad?
You're really, you're just worrying about non-proven potential speculative future problems.
Is that the dumbest argument you've ever heard?
The entire argument about climate change is not about what's happening today.
It's not about today.
It's never about today.
It's always about, if you don't take care of something, something worse will happen in the future.
How do people say that in public?
Act like you can discount the obvious danger for tomorrow because it hasn't happened today.
We see exactly the same thing with the election integrity stuff.
When somebody says, there's no evidence that anything was rigged, I say, are you saying it can't happen next time?
Well, there's no evidence it happened last time.
Did you look everywhere that you could look?
Well, we didn't find anything.
But did you look everywhere you could have looked?
Well, we didn't find any.
No, but did you look everywhere you could have looked?
Can you actually audit everything that happens?
Scott, how many times do I have to tell you?
You extreme MAGA people.
There was nothing found.
That's how the conversation goes, right?
It's always, let me make a very extreme point that's off the topic a little bit.
That's all we see.
Anyway, we'll see if TikTok gets banned or not.
Your guess is not, right?
That's also my guess.
My guess is it won't be banned.
Because I don't think they can execute.
All right.
Well, I saw a tweet by Eugene Scott.
I think he writes for Axios.
He was talking about there are three members of Congress who are sort of, you know, unavailable at the time.
And he reported it this way.
He said, Mitch McConnell, he was undergoing therapy after a fall.
There's John Fetterman, who is being treated for depression.
And there's Dianne Feinstein, who has battled shingles, has battled shingles.
So, McConnell undergoing therapy for fall, Fetterman treated for depression, and Feinstein battling shingles.
I'm wondering if those are euphemisms.
So from Mitch McConnell is undergoing therapy after a fall.
That sounds a little bit like he rolled on his back and because of his shell he can't get up and nobody's helping him.
Does it sound like that a little bit?
Yeah, maybe he just accidentally rolled on his back.
And John Fetterman is being treated for depression, which might mean he's already reincarnated.
Already reincarnated.
I don't know.
It just has that feel about it.
And then where the tweet says that Feinstein battled shingles, I thought to myself, battled shingles?
If you have shingles, usually you say you have shingles.
She had shingles, she's recovering.
But battling shingles?
That sounds like a euphemism for the cat is on the roof.
Where the shingles are.
Where the shingles are.
So yeah, I think it's Mitch McConnell rolled on his back.
Can't get up.
Fetterman is already reincarnated.
And Dianne Feinstein, she's the cat on the roof.
So that's how you read between the lines.
So you can't just read the headlines the way they're written.
You have to read between the lines.
That's how you know what's happening.
All right, here's my favorite story of people complaining about racism being racist.
So you have to see this video that's going around today.
Apparently, Michael Knowles, you might know him from Daily Wire, is going to give a speech, or was giving a speech, at Purdue University.
And there was a very large protest.
In which they were chanting F off Nazis, or Nazi.
So they were suggesting that Michael Knowles is sort of a Nazi, based on the fact that he likes talking about his opinions.
So that's enough to get you labeled a Nazi in America.
So you should see how big the protest was.
Like the hallways were just lined with people.
Well, you're calling it a small protest?
I would say, by college standards, it would be biggish.
And then I looked at the video, and there wasn't a single black person in the protest.
Looked like there might have been some Asian Americans there.
Few.
But basically, it was the biggest gathering of white people I've ever seen in America.
I can't think of another gathering of that many white people I've ever seen in one place.
You know, even a Trump rally has more black people in it.
That was the whitest bunch of people who ever argued against racism.
Because I've got a feeling maybe they should have taken a little look in the mirror because they seem to have all self-selected the whitest place on earth.
Huh.
So maybe they should fix their own diversity problem before they complain about Michael Knowles.
Maybe.
Just saying.
Well, before I talk about the minority leader for the For the house.
How many people in ordinary America would even be able to identify Hakeem Jeffries?
How well known is he, outside of people who talk about politics all the time?
Yeah, who?
So, for those of you who don't know who he is, I'd like to give you just a brief overview, just sort of summarize him a little bit, so that you can understand who he is.
Imagine if you were If you started with Obama.
Imagine Obama.
And think of all the good things about Obama.
Now, I know this is a political group, so you're going to be like, I don't like his policies, blah, blah, blah.
But forget about that for a moment.
Forget about the things you don't like about Obama.
But just think of some of the things you do like.
Some of his best political qualities.
The fact that he could get elected in a federal race with an unprecedented number of white votes.
Very impressive as a politician.
So if you imagine all the best parts of Obama, and then imagine somebody who doesn't have any of those.
Just none of them.
And that would be Hakeem Jeffries.
So that's the best way to understand him is everything good about Obama, he somehow doesn't have.
Not any of those things.
So he only wants to show us that we're racist no matter what we do.
And he's decided that people who want School choice are really extreme MAGA Republicans who don't want the children of America to learn about the Holocaust.
Yeah.
Yeah, that's what school choice is about.
According to the person who has none of the good qualities of Obama.
School choice is about extreme MAGA Republicans not wanting America to learn about the Holocaust.
That is the dumbest... That is just the dumbest thing anybody ever said.
Like, at what point can you start saying, well this isn't about politics?
Is that about politics?
Or is that just like one guy being so dumb that you can't even believe it?
Like, that's his argument.
Amazing.
Secondly, may I point out that the only reason that he's railing against these, what he calls these extreme MAGA Republicans, is because they're white.
Can we be honest?
You wouldn't be saying it if they weren't mostly white.
It's basically just a racist statement from a racist who is pretending to be the anti-racist by being super racist.
That's everything that Obama didn't do.
I always say Obama was so smart because he ran for president as not necessarily a black guy, just somebody who had some good ideas.
That's the smartest thing he ever did.
Now it didn't work out because the country became more divided, but that part certainly he played right.
And I've always appreciated that about his approach.
So the hypocrisy is screaming and hilarious today.
And I guess if we were to embrace and amplify the fact that the Democrats only have one note, It's like, so what do you think about the banking situation?
Racist.
What do you think about Ukraine?
Racist.
I mean, they only have that one thing.
That's all they have.
But you would think that with all of that, they would have noticed that the number one biggest racist thing the country is doing is, would anybody like to jump in?
What's the number one biggest racist thing That the United States is engaged in right now.
Public schools.
CRT.
Close.
Yeah, those are racist.
ESG.
CRT.
Those are all racist things.
DEI is racist.
Teachers unions.
No, you're not even close.
Reparations.
No.
Those are all small things.
They're all small.
I mean, they're very important, but they're small compared to what I'm going to mention.
Climate change.
Climate change.
Climate change is, dollar-wise, and in terms of number of people that would be impacted, is enormous compared to all these things.
And if you fight climate change the way the Democrats would like to, it will hold back third world countries from developing the way we have.
In other words, they won't be able to have 200 years of coal development So, and mostly those are non-white populations.
How in the world is the single biggest racist thing that's ever happened in the history of the world that's not even a topic?
It's the biggest racist event in the world of all time.
It's bigger than slavery.
It's bigger than slavery.
Not worse, you know, if you're looking at how any individual is being treated, slavery is much worse.
But if you look at the overall impact on non-white people, it's the worst that's ever happened.
And I'm not talking about the climate change, I'm talking the response to it.
The response to it is what would cripple any population that has not yet fully developed.
So how in the world do the Republicans let the Democrats get away with being the major part of the biggest racist economic move of all time by a factor of a thousand?
We're not talking about things that are in the same neighborhood, right?
Like even as horrible as let's say the public school systems are and all that, there's nowhere near the scale Of what?
The entire climate changing the economy and banning carbon fuels and stuff like that.
Now, and that's just caring about people in other countries.
Because we're supposed to care about them, right?
If they're humans, we should care about them.
But if you just said, oh, I'm America first.
Well, don't you think that The low-income part of America is suffering more than the high-income part because of our energy policies.
If Trump were president, gas would be cheap, and I'm pretty sure black people buy gas.
I mean, how in the world are we ignoring the only thing that is massively, massively racist?
Massively racist.
And that's the one thing they ignore.
In fact, they're telling the story that not doing it would be racist.
Ridiculous.
The most ridiculous racist thing of all time.
So you can tell that they're not serious in any way about racism.
It's just they have this one note, and the only time they don't use it is when it's super true.
Super true.
That's more than regular true.
Well.
Let's see, what else is crazy?
Speaking of affirmative action, Vivek Ramaswamy who's tweeting this, he says, there's a reason why I'm the only candidate willing to talk about ending affirmative action.
And that Trump's team, he's indicating that Trump's people at some point said it was not a political hill they wanted to die on.
And then Ramaswamy says, you could drag my dead body out of the White House before I finished taking on this issue.
Well, to be fair, The whiter you are, the less you can take on this issue.
I mean, if we're being honest.
For political reasons, it was hard to be Trump supporters and take this on.
But Vivek can do it.
Yeah, Vivek can do it, and he has at least the cover of not being the whitest guy in the race.
And again, he's picking up the free money from the Republican side, and I think that his argument has legs on the left if he plays it right, which he probably does.
Yeah, we're private.
All right, remember I was telling you I was trying to come up with a funny alternative to what the letters ESG mean?
Because people don't know what it means in reality, but they're sure they like it.
It means environmental, social and governance.
So basically it means green fuel and more diversity running companies.
So Vivec has come up with a new meaning for ESG.
Export Soviet Gas.
How do you like that?
Export Soviet gas.
The argument would be that on the environmental side, if we restrict our own energy, all we're doing is increasing the energy that Russia can sell.
Now that's just true, right?
I mean, it's not the only variable in the argument, but it's completely true.
The ESG means export more Soviet gas.
That's literally true.
I'm going to endorse that.
Export Soviet gas.
That works.
It doesn't cover the social and governance part of it, but I don't know that you should.
I think if you just pick out the stupidest part of it, maybe that's the best way to attack it.
So I think he's making a lot of smart attacks.
All right.
How many of you would like to see me talk about the so-called bell curve?
Is anybody up for trouble?
Please, no.
Well, then, I'm going to talk about The Bell Curve.
In the 90s, there was a book called The Bell Curve, in which there were, let's say, two major themes that people got out of it.
Now, when I say what people got out of it, that doesn't mean that the authors put it into it.
It means that's how it was interpreted, OK?
So the author said, Looked at research and said, IQ is definitely and strongly correlated with success.
Is anybody surprised?
Is anybody surprised that IQ is highly correlated with making money and being successful?
No.
So that part of it was probably not surprising at all.
The second part of it is where all the trouble happened.
Where they measured differences by ethnicities, by race.
Now, they did not say that there's some genetic reason for it.
They were silent on why the difference.
In other words, it could be that they measured it wrong, it could be, you know, it's environmental, it could be, you know, poverty related, something like that.
Could be more lead in the paint in some areas and other places.
So they were sort of silent on it.
But, a reasonable reading of the book would suggest That they wouldn't have mentioned it unless they thought it was sort of important.
And so to interpret it, people thought, oh, some people said, I think we've found out why there's a difference in performance among the races.
Because they would say, it's in this book.
This book says IQ is related.
Different races have different IQs.
There it is.
We've explained everything away.
Here is my debunking of that point of view.
I'm going to use myself as an example and a hypothetical, might be true, I don't know, but it's hypothetical.
Doesn't matter if it's true, I'm just using it as an example.
Suppose I found out that my group of white people had lower IQ on average than Vietnamese Americans.
I don't know if that's true.
I have no idea if it's true or not.
But let's say it was true.
Let's say that, and there was a big difference, like 10, 15 points.
So what do I do when I wake up?
How do I act differently now that I know that, in my example, if I know that Vietnamese Americans had higher academic performance and higher IQs, what would I do about it?
Would I give up because I can't do as well as they can do?
I don't think I would.
I think all I would do is incorporate it into my strategy.
And I'd say, oh, well, you might be able to beat me on a test, but maybe I could outwork you.
Oh, good luck with that.
And maybe I can form a strategy by putting together, let's say, a talent stack.
That my combined skills, maybe none of them are as good as the person I'm competing against, but when I combine them I'm a more capable full package.
I just adjust my strategy for the fact that somebody can beat me at something on average.
Now of course I would know that if I were applying for a job and there were another Vietnamese American applying for the same job.
Would I say to myself, no, I'll never get that job because of the average?
No, of course not.
I would apply for the job because the average doesn't tell me that that person is smarter than me.
It doesn't tell me anything about that one situation.
So if you ask yourself, how would you use the information?
It turns out there's no way to use it.
All you would do is do the things you should have been doing anyway.
You should have been having your maximum strategy, doing whatever is the best thing you can do independent of what anybody else is doing.
Or what would the law do?
What would the government do differently?
If it found out that I had a lower, if I were a member of a group, that has nothing to do with me, but I'm a member of a group with lower IQ than some other group, what does my government do?
Nothing, I hope.
I would hope they do nothing.
Because if you help all of the individuals in all of the groups do the best they can, you get the best outcome.
It's very clear that helping everybody who needs help gets you a good outcome.
But what would you do if you found some, like, average difference?
There's nothing you can do with it.
Except be a frickin' racist.
The only thing you can do with that information about differences in IQs, because it's an average, if it spoke to every single person in the group, well then you could be a racist and use it for some useful purpose.
But as long as it doesn't tell you anything about an individual, and everything you and I do is with individuals, we're not going to do anything differently.
We're still going to judge people individually.
And the reason you would judge people individually is that it's for your benefit.
It's not that you're such an open-minded, great person.
If you didn't trust people, if you didn't treat individuals individually, you would miss out on some vast number of people who have, you know, a lot to contribute.
So you'd be hurting yourself to take a strategy of assuming you know what somebody is by an average.
By an average?
And suppose you're white, And, oh, let's say you're Vietnamese-American.
Suppose you're Vietnamese-American and you found out that your group had, on average, higher IQ than another group.
Do you feel good about yourself?
Well, if you did, why?
Why?
You're not the average.
You can feel good about yourself if you individually were smarter than most people.
Maybe you could feel good about that.
But if you're not the smartest person in your group, why do you get credit for the fact that somebody else is?
How do I get credit for the fact that Einstein was smart?
I'm not even related.
How do I get credit for that?
What, because he's white too?
So the whole idea that the average of anything is something you can use is ridiculous.
Now let me give you one good way you could use it, I think.
Let's say if you found one ethnic group had higher or lower IQ.
It might be a flag that there's something they're doing environmentally that's different.
That's a possibility, so I'd look into it.
For example, One of the issues that I agree with with Black Lives Matter is about nutritional equality.
Nutritional equality.
That might be one place where equity makes more sense than equality.
Because it shouldn't be equality of, you know, potentially having good food.
It should be, do we all have a decent diet?
That is one area where equity makes a lot more sense than in other areas.
How much does nutrition contribute to IQ?
I don't know.
But it could be a lot.
Could be a lot.
So if you found out, for example, that one group had a difference, either higher or lower than the average, the first thing I'd ask is, what do they eat?
What do they eat?
Because if it turned out that, let's say, this is just ridiculous speculation, but suppose it turned out that rice was really way better for you than you thought.
And you'd say, well, everybody eats rice.
But I'd say, well, not as much.
Asian-Americans, probably, probably, I've never studied it, but I'm guessing, might eat more rice.
What if it turns out that rice was really good for your brain?
I'm not saying it is, I'm just speculating.
That would be the only good use For knowing that there was any kind of ethnic difference in IQ.
Otherwise, there's nothing you can do with it.
Because it doesn't speak to a person.
If it doesn't speak to individuals, it doesn't work in our system.
Our system is about, or should be, maximizing individual happiness, not group average.
That would be the dumbest way to manage a country, is to try to get the group average up.
Of any group.
It makes no sense at all.
A troll asked me, are Jewish people superior, Scott? - What?
Did you listen to anything I just fucking said?
Did you listen to anything I just said?
As soon as you say the average of any group, and compare it to the average of any group, you're an idiot.
You're just a fucking idiot.
You're looking for trouble.
The only thing that's good for is being a troublemaker, right?
What was that question for other than to demonstrate you're obviously anti-Semitic?
Was there anything else that that question could possibly do that makes the world a better place?
No!
No!
Every time you say the average of this group to the average of the other group, you're just being stupid or racist.
Now, if what you're arguing is, let's say, for or against affirmative action, I mean, that's a separate argument.
And I've been in favor of affirmative action historically, but I think it's time to re-look at it.
That's why I agree with Vivek, that it's a good time to be having the conversation about pivoting.
Because it might be creating more problems than it's solving right now.
If we fixed, I think if we fixed education, then it would be much less important to have any kind of affirmative action.
There's such a shortage of skilled workers, and it looks like that will continue, that I would imagine business would hire everybody they could, of any type, if they demonstrated the skills required for the job.
So I think that training would eliminate affirmative action as even, it wouldn't even make sense.
You wouldn't even think about it.
David said, you can't fix education for a low IQ.
David, I don't believe you heard anything I just said.
Low IQ is an average.
Most people are just ordinary.
There are very few people who excel at anything.
Right?
So I'm not talking about fixing IQ with education.
I'm talking about taking every individual and making them the best version of themselves.
Do you disagree that education helps people become better versions of themselves if you do it right?
Is there any argument on that?
I think some people are so wed to their racism that you just can't release on this even though all of the logic says it's useless.
All of the logic says it's a good way to tag yourself as a racist, and then you're done.
So let me tell you how to tag yourself as a racist who doesn't have any good ideas about the world.
Oh, that bell curve is telling us what we need to do.
End of story.
It is a useless bit of information that just causes trouble.
It's not good for any individual.
Except in that weird case where it might tell you to look at environmental factors, but that's about it.
All right.
Yeah, it's a red herring.
Facts exist for a reason.
All right, is there anybody else who, let's see if I've made a dent in this audience.
Because I know this is a hard one.
If you believe that this was your main And I would say a lot of racists believe this.
If your main filter on life is IQ difference and you're like, I'm done, I'm done.
You know, once you've said that, it's everything you need to say.
What are you going to do with it?
Like, what policy do you change because of that?
Wouldn't you still treat everybody as a human being who you'd like to give the best opportunity for them?
It just doesn't make any sense to divide people and then do that average and think you know something about how to run things.
It doesn't tell you that.
It just doesn't give you that information.
It's a useless concept that your common sense, which is always flaky, your common sense is what Drives you in the wrong direction every time.
The reason that we have statistics is that your common sense gives you the wrong answer.
Do you know that?
There would be no point in having the field of statistics if your common sense could give you the same answer.
The fact that it doesn't is why you need the statistics.
All right.
There's a higher odds of smart people among higher IQ groups.
Right.
Now do something with that.
So there's the comment.
If a group has a higher IQ on average, would it be true that there's a greater chance that a person in that group has a higher IQ?
What are you going to do with that?
What are you going to do with that?
Suppose it's true.
How are you going to act differently?
It's still everything depends on the individual.
The person who walks into your office for a job isn't an average.
That doesn't tell you anything about them.
Now, if you're saying, well, it tells me the odds.
No, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
That person is still an entirely individual person.
They are not influenced by the odds.
Only your mind is influenced by it, not the person.
The person is just the person.
Thank you, clown man.
All right, I feel like I've introduced enough doubt.
Let me say this.
If you're mentioning IQ in a conversation about race, you're just not being a serious person.
And your claim that it's a fact can be true.
It can be true that it's a fact.
But if you can't connect it to what you would do about it, or how you would treat the next person that walks in the door, Jay Boss is calling me a coward, I believe.
I believe I'm being called a coward for not speaking frankly about race.
Are you new here?
I paid in advance.
The thing that you think that I don't want to pay, the price you think I don't want to pay, I paid in advance.
That's how willing I am to pay the price.
I paid in advance for this conversation and any other conversation I have on race.
I already paid.
Are you a coward?
Are you afraid to speak to make a point on this?
Because you should be a coward.
Because you don't have a useful argument.
If I were you, I'd be afraid to speak in public if that's the best I could do.
It's like, oh, you're afraid, you're a coward.
By the way, I've updated the NPC spotting list.
This is sort of a running list I like to keep.
If you're looking for who's like a serious person versus who's just a non-player character.
So my list is getting pretty long of things that the NPCs say.
Look for these words to identify an NPC.
You're an apologist.
You fence-sitter.
Racist.
Why do you keep obsessing over?
Keep digging.
Oh, you're walking it back now, flip-flopper.
Oh, you must be afraid of, or calling you a coward, you must be afraid of, it was actually on my list of NPC spotters, you think, that's the mind-reading one, you think all goldfish can fly.
That's the crazy one.
I saw it on the video.
There's no other way to... I saw the video.
Don't tell me it didn't happen.
Don't tell me you can interpret it differently.
Don't tell me there's other context.
I saw the video.
NPC.
You said all of the people in that group when nobody ever means all of the people in that group.
That's an NPC.
How about, you're only doing this for clicks.
Said to somebody whose business depends on online traffic.
You're only doing it for clicks.
Educate yourself.
There's a good one.
And I like this one.
This ain't it, chief.
This ain't it, chief.
Why don't you just blow him?
You love him so much.
That's a fan favorite.
And my one that I just added today, no one is above the law.
If you ever find yourself saying in a conversation, no one is above the law, the one thing that everybody agrees on with no disagreement.
Yeah.
If that's the best you could do, no one is above the law, you're not a player.
You might be a non-player character.
Just saying.
All right.
Now, let me ask you this, because I like to check in with you every now and then.
Did my discussion of the, what do you call it, the bell curve, Did my bell curve discussion add anything to the conversation?
I'm not saying you have to agree with it.
I'm saying, did it deepen the conversation?
Now, I'm going to really have to talk to somebody individually.
I'm going to have to talk to somebody individually to see what the pushback is on that.
I got a lot of yeses, but a lot of nos as well.
What would be the counter argument?
Oh, okay, here's a counter argument from Craig.
Who says, he paid for this, so, the average snake is non-venomous.
If you tell your child to assume all snakes in the woods are venomous, you could be robbing them of a wonderful reptilian encounter.
So, the idea here would be that you could act on the average, which I would agree with if you're talking about physical danger.
I would agree that you could act on the averages to say, alright, if I'm going into an area with lots of poverty, probably more crime.
Would you agree that would be reasonable?
If you're going into a low income, high density area, and that's the only thing you know about it, it's real low income and it's high density, would you tell your child to go there?
Or would you say, you might be okay, but it looks like it's dangerous?
No, you could say it's dangerous.
So there are definitely lots of logical times you can use the average.
If you were a black American and you wanted to avoid white supremacists, would you think that there would be more white supremacists among a population of white people or a population of black people?
Who would have the most white supremacists?
Yeah, so using Using statistics to avoid populations is not crazy.
There's nothing crazy about that.
Using statistics to treat an individual difference different would be inappropriate.
Now, is that why the other people were disagreeing with me?
Because I wasn't talking about physical safety.
When it comes to physical safety, you can ignore everything.
Physical safety is just about statistics.
So you can ignore all the niceties, you can ignore polite behavior, you can ignore looking good to other people, you can ignore all of that when it comes to physical safety.
It'd be stupid to not pay attention to the statistics when it comes to physical safety.
But if you're meeting one person, you know, somebody walks into your office wearing a suit, if somebody walks into your office wearing a suit, You're going to say, I think I'll judge them by the average.
Who would do that?
No, the suit should give you the statistics you need.
Somebody can get a suit, put on a suit, tie their necktie, show up on time.
You know a lot.
That tells you a lot about the person based on statistics.
Most people who can put on a suit and show up on time for an interview are at least in the top 50% of competent human beings.
You know, that automatically puts them in the top half.
They got to work to get in the top, you know, 10%, but walking in the door, you're in the top half.
Yeah, everything we do is based on statistics in terms of that sort of stuff.
All right?
So, Yeah, the good scammers would still wear a suit.
That's why I said it puts you in the top 50%.
It doesn't tell you more than that.
What is it?
Mensa people are not the richest.
You're selling them up from Envenimo.
What is it?
Mensa people are not the richest.
That's true.
Yeah, you know, when I was in Mensa, I hosted some events at my place.
And it was the least successful group of people who had the highest IQs.
Now, part of it was they were the ones available to go to meetings to talk about how they're smart.
It was actually a filtering thing.
The people who are smart, know they're smart, and have used their smartness to build companies and succeed, they didn't need to go to a meeting of people who needed to basically reassure each other that they're smart.
If you've actually done something successful, you're going to say, that's all I need.
If you haven't done something successful, but you score well on IQ tests, you get together with other people in that same situation.
So you can remind yourself you're the smart ones who for some reason didn't succeed.
Yeah.
The moment my life started going well, I started succeeding, I immediately gave up going to Mensa meetings.
Because I actually was there to find out if I was wrong, that I was smart.
I actually didn't know.
I was trying to find out.
So it was part of a personal journey, you could say.
All right.
Ladies and gentlemen, that's all for YouTube.
I will see you tomorrow.
And I'm going to talk to the locals people privately.
