How To Break Out Of Your Bubble, Cost Of Talking Trump & AOC | Scott Adams | POLITICS | Rubin Report

– You should definitely be
sampling both sides of the news. If you’re not looking
at Fox News and CNN, you don’t know what’s happening. (electronic music) – Hey, this is The Rubin Report, and according to the paperwork
I’m still Dave Rubin. Just a quick reminder, guys, to subscribe to the channel
and click that bell over there. YouTube’s really been crushing
us on the recommended videos so it’s most likely the only way you’ll get to see our clips. All right, then. Joining me today is the creator of the legendary
Dilbert comic strip and the author of the
new book “Loser Think”. Scott Adams, welcome
back to The Rubin Report. – Thanks for having me. – Third time, man. – I say better every time. – They say three
times in the charm. First off, before I
ask you anything else, because you’re a
man of persuasion, how was my intro there
in terms of persuasion? Do you think I persuaded people to actually click the bell, to actually subscribe? Was I heavy-handed enough,
was I subtle enough? – You might need a
little technique. You need to tell them
there’s a shortage, all their friends are doing it, everybody’s talking about
it, you don’t wanna miss it, limited edition. We might take that button
away if you don’t click it, and you might never
be able to subscribe if you don’t do it right now. Those are crazy examples but… Yeah, there’s probably another
level you could take that. – There’s probably
another level. – I should be hiring you
on retainer or something to just deal with
my YouTube problems, and how to get
people to subscribe, and that sort of nonsense. – I need another job. (both chuckling) – Somehow I really doubt
you need another job. – I’m pretty busy right
now with the book. – All right, so, we’re gonna
talk a lot about the book. But for anyone that just
hasn’t seen our interviews, or for some reason has
never come across Dilbert, or is not watching you
drink coffee on Twitter, let’s just do the Scott
Adams two-minute bio of what got you into,
first, the cartoon strip, and then now being an author, and sort of a de facto leader of the deplorables
online, in a weird way. – Wow. I don’t know if I
signed up for that. – How was that for a question? – Where would you
like me to start? – Let’s just recap
the career quick, for those that didn’t see
the other two interviews. – I was working in my
cubicle jobs for 16 years when I was a younger man. Those careers have a glass
ceiling, in both cases. I can tell this story now. I couldn’t tell it at the time. But in both cases, my boss
called me into the office and said, “We got caught “with no diversity
in senior management, “and so, until further notice, “you’re a white male,
we can’t promote you.” They said it directly. It’s not an interpretation. So after the second
company told me that, I left the first one
for telling me that, I went to the phone company. They told me the same thing
after I was there for a while. And I said, “I gotta find
a way to not have a boss.” And so, I tried a few things. Cartooning was one of them. Short story long, I submitted materials to
the major syndications. One liked it enough to say yes. Cartooning begins, that goes well, Dilbert. And Dilbert turned out okay. – [Dave] It did okay. – I’d like to give the context because it sounds like I went
right to it and hit gold. But I tried other things. I tried to be a programmer. I tried to write, other
things, et cetera. This was just the
thing that worked. And then time goes by and there’s this President
Trump situation occurred, first Candidate Trump. And I was not intending to
make any kind of a pivot. I just noticed he
had some skills that I thought I could
see that others couldn’t because I’m a trained hypnotist, and I’ve been
studying persuasion in all of its various forms.
So when I saw him I thought, “Well, it’d be useful
for the country to know “that this isn’t an accident “that he’s starting
to get more attention. “He knows how to do
this, it’s a technique.” And so I started… – Can I pause you
there for one sec? Because that’s when
I first met you. You weren’t even a Trump
supporter at the time. You were just talking about
the techniques he was using and just because of
that, everyone said, “Oh, Scott Adams is
MAGA, he’s far right,” all of that nonsense. Not that you were supporting some of his policies
necessarily, but you were just saying, “This is how he is
doing these things. “This is how he is
gaining a following “and getting his message out.” – I identify as left of Bernie. – You still do now?
– I still do. Because socially… I can give you some examples, but socially I do. But what I eventually
saw in Trump is that he had a toolkit that I thought could just do
stuff other people wouldn’t do. Take on China. That’s the toolkit you want. Be the best cheerleader
for the economy. Literally get our psychology
working in the right direction. Hey, everything’s good,
everything’s good. Why don’t you invest? Okay. That’s the psychology
of the economy. I thought nobody’s gonna
do that as well as him. And likewise, North Korea. I thought, “Who could
have a meeting,” well before it happened. I had already written about it. I said, “Who could have a
meeting with Kim Jong-un “and just turn this personal,
maybe find a way in?” President Trump. I’m a supporter in
terms of his toolkit, but that doesn’t mean I agree
with everything he does. – Yeah. That’s a hard place to
be in, though, right? Because people don’t really care for that second part
of that sentence. – It’s an expensive place to be. And let me tell you, because my income’s down 30%. There are just things I can’t do because I’m associated
with saying something too nice about his skill. – Can you talk about
that a little bit more? What kind of business
things have dried up, or even personal friends, or I don’t wanna say
specifically where you live, but you do live in California. I mean, you live in a place
that is maybe not so hospitable to some of these ideas. – Let’s just say there
was a rebuilding period where I had to make
new friends. (chuckles) A lot of them. – What phase of that building
process are you in right now? – I’m living a very good life
with my girlfriend, Kristina, and we’re quite happy
with the way things are. So I don’t have a
complaint there. It’s just an observation that socially it
became very difficult to have the same friends.
– But what was that like? Because I think
everyone watching this has been through
that to some degree. My book is about that. It’s about what happens as you start sort of coming
out of the political closet that you sort of get
thrown under the bus by people that you
thought were your friends. Next thing you know, there’s this whole other
crew that’s welcoming you. I mean, it really
is sort of a flip on everything you know. – Only my most, let’s
say, honest friends were willing to
say it to my face. And that only
happened a few times. But mostly, I just noticed
that my Facebook feed started to get…
(both chuckling) It was getting
emptier and emptier. I’d be like, “Huh, really? “Only one picture was
posted all this week “by everybody I know? “That’s weird.” And then you see that
they’ve unfriended you. And then you check their feeds, and you see what their
political leaning is. You put two plus two
together, and here we are. – Yeah. How does your background
in persuasion, and magic, and the cartoon, and everything, fit your general demeanor? I said to you right
before we started that you’re one of the few
people that I now know that when I see them on Twitter I don’t like them less. There’s so many people
that I know that… And we all are not necessarily
our best selves on Twitter, and online in general. But I see so many people that
I kind of respect, or I know, and then I look
at their Twitter. I’m like, “Ooh, what
is going on here?” And I’m sure there’s people
that say that about me too. But you seem like
you’re pretty, like, pretty much the
same in both worlds. – But to be fair, there
are a lot of people who look at my Twitter and say, “You’re the worst
person in the world. “I used to like your comic, “but now I can
never laugh again.” Just in general, “I
can never laugh again.” – You’ve taken
away their ability not just to laugh at
you, but the whole thing. – Have you noticed that humor
has just completely changed? As been said, you
can’t make a movie, a funny movie, a funny TV show. In fact, if you watch
an old Family Guy rerun, the whole time I’m
sitting there thinking, “You couldn’t make that today.” – Couldn’t do that one.
– You couldn’t do that. – You couldn’t do that.
– Couldn’t do that one. – But humor has become reality, and politics, and it’s
very entertaining. And thankfully we have
the funniest president we’ve ever had.
(Dave chuckles) – As a satirist, though, what do you make of the
comedy side of this? Because it’s somebody
like Seth MacFarlane who created Family
Guy, they’ve said, I don’t know that they’re
going through with it but I remember a few months
back they had said this thing where they’re not gonna
do any more gay jokes. And it’s like, well, the show
did 25 years of gay jokes, and now gays are equal so this might be the
time to make gay jokes so you can further integrate
people into society. That’s what Don
Rickles did, right? It brought us all together. Or The Simpsons. They were gonna take
out Apu for a while, and then Hank Azaria, the greatest voiceover
actor of all time, had to apologize for
doing an Indian accent. What do you make of not just the content,
but the people behind it? The way they’ve been infected. – I’m generally okay
with the concept that society moves forward and things that we
used to laugh at we didn’t realize were cruel. And then maybe you
grow up and say, “Ah, that was really meaner
than it needed to be,” or, “It wasn’t really
trying to do that.” And so I’m okay with
society evolving. But the trouble
is it evolved away all the things that were
the normal joke materials. Now, it didn’t affect
me with Dilbert because when you’re
in a family newspaper there’s a cap on
what you can do. So I was always well in the
family-friendly version, talking about the workplace. So it didn’t affect me much, but it certainly changed
the landscape of humor, probably forever. – Yeah. Do you feel freer? Because I think you said to
me last time you were here that you’ve got some F-U money so that you can be free
enough to do what you want. – Yeah. I didn’t think it would
be as expensive as it was. (both chuckling) Maybe I woulda
thought it through. But no, it won’t
change my lifestyle. And I did recognize that I
was in this unique position where I had something to say that, in my opinion,
was not biased. It was just, “Hey, this
is what I’m seeing. “There’s a little good and
there’s a little bad here.” So I thought it
was a unique niche. Nitch, niche? – I’ll go with either one. I’ll take either one. – I shouldn’t say words
I never say out loud. – I would have said
niche, personally, but I would accept nitch. – As I look at your
lovely decorations here I think that you’re
probably right. (Dave chuckling) – I’m better suited to figure
out the correct pronunciation. – It feels like it fits
somehow, I don’t know. – What do you make of just how, as a guy that you came out
of newspapers, as you said, that now you use all of this
stuff in a different way? You sit, in the morning… Do you do it every morning? You do it pretty
much every morning. You get on Twitter. What, do you have your
phone, just, like, locked on something, and you make
yourself some coffee? You just talk to the world. That’s a big transition from putting a cartoon in the
paper and letting it be, versus this fully
interactive thing. – Yeah, the difference is… Yes, I do coffee
with Scott Adams on the Periscope app every day. Then it moves over to YouTube about an hour later, on replay. But I started doing it because I was just
interested in the election, and there were people to talk
to, and I had more to say, and I didn’t feel like writing
it all down all the time, because every day there’d be
three new things to talk about. And then it just grew. I wasn’t… I didn’t really have no
expectation, no plan. I wasn’t planning
to even monetize it. It just grew into a thing. And now, if I miss a day… Because I do it on the
weekends too, holidays. Because people are so addicted to having the simultaneous
sip, as I call it. So I do a toast of
coffee with the public. And that they miss it. And so, now it’s sort
of a labor of love. I would really, really miss it. Like, this morning, my wife, I wasn’t working so well, and I was like, “Ah, I don’t
know if I could do it.” But I got my hotspot working, and then it made me happy. – You could have
done it from here. – That would’ve been great. Most work doesn’t
make you happy. You might like your job, but
it doesn’t make you happy. Whereas doing the Periscopes,
it’s just a joy every day. – I actually did it one morning. I did coffee with Dave. And I did fully credit
you with the coffee idea. No one was talking
with coffee before you. But I did think that
there was something nice about starting the day just
unloading a couple thoughts. Just that in and of itself
I thought was refreshing. – Yeah, and it has the
unintended consequence that I often frame things
before people wake up. So if there’s something
that happened, say, in the afternoon, the pundits and people haven’t
had much time to deal with it and sometimes I’m the
first person they hear saying, “Well, the
way to look at this is “this is important,
and this isn’t.” And somewhat accidentally
I became influential. – Do you think that’s
your primary skill, a sort of framing
of the craziness? And we’re obviously gonna get
to the book in a little bit, but I think that’s
what you’re doing, is you’re helping people frame through just this endless
onslaught of information. – I often say I
have one superpower. I’ve got one superpower and then a bunch of
supporting talents that I’ve tried to piece
together over time. The superpower is
simplification. I’m just a really
good simplifier, which is what makes
one a cartoonist. Cartoon is, by its definition, the simplest thing you can
put in this little panel. If you can simplify,
you can frame. Because it’s taking
in all the noise, focusing on the
thing that mattered. So I naturally have that
skill as a simplifier. – It’s kind of funny, because
that’s almost the reverse of what everyone else is doing. And this sort of is
what the book is about. Everyone else is pretending they know everything about
everything all day long. People who can’t tie their shoes can tell you about
climate change, and the rest of it. So it’s like you’re
doing the reverse of what seemingly most of the blue
check Twitterati is up to. – You should ignore
anybody who has a sense of complete certainty
about a complicated issue, unless they’re a surgeon,
and it’s their domain. But if it’s just guy on Twitter
talking about climate change or the, I don’t know,
trade with China, they don’t know. – How do you figure out
who you can listen to or make some sense out of,
or something like that? – I just have a
little of everybody. I find the only way to
look in all the windows is you’ve gotta figure out
what everybody’s saying and then maybe you’ve got
a little bit of an ability to determine which
one is more sensible, sometimes not. – Does the endless
political part of this kind of make you crazy? In that everything
is political now. You talk about politics a lot, pretty much every day. But you don’t
strike me as, like, a purely political creature. – Well, my interest is actually the psychological part of it. I’m actually completely
uninterested in politics, believe it or not, even though I’m dealing
with it every day. I’m interested in
the age of Trump because of what that does to
our collective psychology. And I think after
he’s out of office I just don’t know if
I’d be interested. It’s not like I’m following
California politics beyond the fires and
the sidewalk poop. – You think if
things somehow reset to something that
felt more normal, or at least closer to the
way things used to be, two old guys, the way things
used to be, real boomers here, you think that you
might actually just step away or
something like that? – I don’t know that I
could be interested. If you imagine any one
of the Democrats winning, I guess I’d be, you know, super interested if it
were one of the socialists because then I might have
to get involved as a citizen just to do something to stop what could be
a cataclysmic problem. But other than that, no. I just wouldn’t be
naturally interested. – So what do you make about what’s going on with
the Democrats right now? Because as I said, I
had you in originally, before Trump was president,
just at the beginning. And I think I said this to
you last time you were here, the second time, one of the reasons
I was not surprised at what happened at the election
was because I heard you. And I was like, “I think
this guy’s onto something.” So, if you were kind
of right about that, what do you make of the
split between the socialists and then what I would
say are the last vestiges of some sort of old
school Democrat, which is basically
Biden limping along and whoever else could sort of
be considered moderate there? – Well, you know what’s
really interesting? I’ve never said this out loud so this will be just for you. – [Dave] You do know
we’re recording this. – Shoot. (both chuckling) We’re gonna find out
for the first time if the Democrats
have kingmakers. Because it looks like if
you left it to the public they would pick Bernie
or Elizabeth Warren. But anybody who’s
paying attention knows they can’t
win in the general. And they also want to win. So if they have kingmakers you’re gonna see them emerge, but maybe a little closer
to the nomination itself. I don’t know what
that will look like. And I don’t know if they exist. And do they exist? Are there money people
who are just gonna say, “Look, we gotta win, “and these two candidates
aren’t gonna get it done, “so give us a Buttigieg,
give us a Tulsi Gabbard, “give us a Klobuchar,
give us something else.” – Do you not sense that that’s what they
tried to do last time in that Bernie probably
had all the momentum but they just cut
him at the knees and then felt that
Hillary was the right one? So they already tried
the kingmaker thing and it would almost
be too obvious now? I think you’re basically right. That does seem like
what’s happening here. They threw Biden in as
the firewall, right? – I think Clinton
was a special case because I think she
had her own support, and that was pretty deep. But will that support go… How does it work
when she’s not in it? What does that look like? Are they still as active to do something that
would be Hillary-like without a Hillary? That’s what we’re
gonna find out. – So, basically you’re
saying, if you’re Trump, you’re going, “Oh, please
let it be Bernie or Warren,” because you just think the
numbers-wise it’s just like… – Or Biden. I throw him in there
as the unelectable. So top three are, by far, the most unelectable in
the general election. – Why Biden? I get you on the
Bernie, Elizabeth thing. If people have just had
it with the woke thing and the far left progressives, believe me, I hear you. But Biden at least seems like he would maybe bring
some of the people that are just kind
of fed up with Trump, keep some of the centrists. But you think then
all the woke people would just try to take him
out or something like that? – Well, here’s a question
I’ve been asking. I’ve been asking
people, even in public, “Have you ever met
a Biden supporter?” (Dave laughing) You’re laughing because you
know you’ve never met one. I’ve met a Warren
supporter, a Biden. You can go down the list. But Buttigieg, haven’t
met any, or Klobuchar. But that’s because
she’s low in the polls. But Biden’s at the
top of the polls. In fact, top of the polls even
in the general against Trump. And I’ve never met one? Or have I never met
one who would admit it? – Well, I guess there’s
a certain set of people that are just deeply
unenthused who are just like, “Well, it’s better than that,” so they don’t run
around with a Biden sign or something like that. – I have to think that
people who are supporting him don’t know who else
is in the race, and they also haven’t seen
him on video recently. I don’t wanna be unkind. When we first started seeing him I actually said in public,
“Let’s be kind about this, “because this won’t last long.” The party will take
care of it on their own then we’ll have a candidate
with full capability. But I feel, honestly, honestly, I feel bad for him. – [Dave] Yeah, I do too. – But at the same time, I don’t feel like I can
pull a punch anymore if there’s something
that needs to be said. In the beginning
I was gonna say, “Just let this take
care of itself. “We don’t need to pile on.” But now maybe we do. Maybe we do need to pile on if we see a real problem. I just don’t think he’s got the mental capacity, especially if you fast
forward four years, or God help us, eight years. What would he be in eight years? – Well, it’s ironic, because
I think a lot of people, and obviously you would
not be a Biden supporter, but you are trying to
respectful of a guy just as a human being. But it does seem like
something is degrading there. It just does.
– He’s not only a human being, but he’s been a great
servant of the public. He’s apparently well
liked on both sides. I have a lot of good
to say about him, but it’s just not his time. – Do you think we’re all
too focused on politics? As a guy that’s not a
pure political beast but is framing it
for a lot of people. – I wonder how many are focused. You know, if you walked
down in the sidewalk and you sat down, “Name our few
people running for president “on the Democrat side,” how many could they even name? I don’t know. Could they find Ukraine on
the map, to use that example? – [Dave] (chuckles) No. That I know they can’t. – I feel like you and I, we’re living in
this Twitterverse where it seems like it’s
the most important thing, but maybe it’s not. – Does that, do you
think, sometimes make
it a little harder to judge what’s
actually going on? Before 2016 it was like, because
we existed in that world, we could see something that
other people couldn’t see. Now that world has
sort of collided with mainstream in a bigger way so it does make it harder to
track some of these things. Does that make sense? – Well, I think it’s
hard for all of us to see outside of our bubble. – That’s what we’re
gonna talk about. – And so I don’t imagine
that I’m free from that. The best I can do is use some technique to try to see the other levels as best I can. So putting the effort in
is the best you can do. You just can’t tell if you’re
seeing the whole field. That’s the trouble. – Speaking of the bubble,
let’s move it to the book. First off, the top
title is “Loser Think”. We’ll get to the
subtitle in just a sec. But when you’re
titling the book, were you afraid to go, “If I
call this thing ‘Loser Think’, “the average guy…” As you know because I
just wrote this thing, and we’re dealing with
titles and all of this stuff. It’s like you want them to
see it and be able to grab it. But did you think, “Uh oh. “If we put this out there
and it says ‘Loser Think’ “people are gonna be afraid “because they think if
they’re gonna touch it “that means they’re a loser,”
or something like that? What’s the persuasion level
you were working with? – Yes, we thought about it. Here’s… I’ll just talk you through,
here’s how we thought about it. Number one, I said, if
I give it this title will people ask me, “Why’d
you give it this title? “Isn’t that a mistake?” (Dave laughing)
Bingo, bingo. Everybody asked me that. – I just fell right
into the trap. – No, and that was anticipated that people would wonder that. Two, because there exists
the Dummies series of books and the Idiot’s Guide, it’s been proven that
people will buy a book that says they’re
an idiot on it. And lots of them.
(Dave laughing) These are two… The series, the Dummies
and the Idiot’s Guide books are enormous, so clearly that. But here’s the other insight
I had because of Dilbert. When I wrote Dilbert
it was, of course, making fun of your
boss, most of the time. But bosses kept
buying my material. And I would be like, “Why are
you buying it,” in my head. And they would say, “This
perfectly describes my bosses.” – [Dave] Right, right,
right, even the bosses. – Nobody thought it was them. So we’re primed to think
this is about someone else. I believe most people are
picking this up and saying one of two things. They’re saying, “Ha
ha, this will be fun. “We’ll mock all those people.” And it does, if they wanna see unproductive thinking
techniques in the book. And two, this will be a perfect
gift for my brother-in-law, (both laughing) and it’ll be a private
joke that that’s the title. – Right, so, the subtitle is, “How Untrained Brains
Are Ruining America”. Now that makes a
lot of sense to me because that seems
like pretty much everything that’s
happening at every level. At academia, at the political
level, at the media level. Do you mean it at every
level, just across the board? – Well, it’s certainly
making everything worse. And the problem is
that everybody thinks they have this thing
called common sense. And therefore they
think they’re arguing about politics or
priorities or something. And often, they’re not. They’re just
unproductively thinking so that the thing they’re
saying is actually nonsense. It’s not an opinion,
it’s not a priority. It’s just sort of nonsense because they don’t know
how to productively think. So I thought, “Well, I’ll
try to make it accessible.” Instead of writing a how to
do logic book kinda book, which nobody’s gonna read, I’ll just give you the
friendly anecdote version that you could
absorb pretty easily. – All right, so, if you’re
trapped in your bubble and it’s becoming a
self-fulfilling prophecy, what’s the first step
to breaking out of
your loser think? – Well, it’s good to
know what all the various parts of loser think are. And I go through them. Like don’t be a mind reader. Don’t predict the
future with analogies. History doesn’t predict. Slippery slope isn’t real. Fairness… – I wanna go through
a few of those. – Without details, it’s
good to know what those are. But beyond that, you
should definitely be sampling both
sides of the news. If you’re not looking
at Fox News and CNN, you don’t know what’s happening. Because I’ve tried doing that. Pick a topic, and before you’ve
heard what the other says, just consume one silo. And then you go
to the other one. You’re like, “What? “I didn’t know anybody
was saying this. “Are you telling me
these facts are real?” And it doesn’t matter
which way you’re going. They’re completely different. – But is it almost impossible
to break out of that? I mean, we all talk
about this all the time. We’re catering
news to ourselves. The algorithms are
feeding us things that reinforce our
thoughts already. But is it almost impossible
to break out of it because in a weird
way, psychologically, we don’t wanna break out of it? I know some people do, but that most of us,
kinda, we just… Does it not sound corny? That’s the safe space
we find, and we’re good, and we’re reinforced,
and it’s warm. – This is why I sneak
in the back door. If I said to you, “Dave, I’m
gonna get you to change teams,” whatever your team is, Democrat, Republican,
doesn’t matter, you would immediately
say (imitates screeching) Or you’d be like, everything
you’re shooting at me is bouncing off my force field. But if I say, “Here’s
how you should think. “In any situation, “you wanna have something
to compare something to,” a very simple statement, people accept that because that’s just
reasonable on its surface. And then you take that through, all right, now apply
this to your thinking. So you can sometimes get people to talk themselves
out of their position by giving them better tools. But you can’t just say, “Change teams because
you’re on the wrong team.” – How much of this do you think is just base human psychology? Just the stuff we’re born with. That certain people are
just more programmed to go to just things that
reinforce their beliefs, and some people
are just programmed to actually being a
little bit more open? – Well, I think all
of these things, you’re born with a certain set of gifts and
intelligence, et cetera. But in “Loser Think”
I talk about how the experience you’ve
had across domains is what gives you better vision. For example, if you’d never
been exposed to economics, I’ve got a degree in economics, you wouldn’t know
how economists think. So you might run into a
concept like a sunk cost. And if you’d never
been exposed to this you might say, “Well,
I have common sense.” And people would say, “We’ve
already spent all this money “so we better keep investing “because I don’t wanna waste
that money I already spent.” That’s not sensible. An economist would say, “No. “The money that’s gone “should not influence
your next decision, “because it’s gone.” Now, the first time you hear
that, you say, “Oh, yeah.” Like, you don’t need to read a
book on it. You just hear it. And so I tried to make
it as simple as that. You just gotta hear
it once, and you say, “Ah, yeah, that makes sense.” – You think we all have
preprogrammed abilities to be flexible on
some of these things, but you think that that can
pretty much always be… – Different levels. I mean, people are
more or less locked in, more or less team players, more or less capable
of looking at details and thinking properly. But everybody can do it better. – Do you think the
internet’s changing that, just relative to the speed
that we get information, and the fact that you can
now go out there and find roughly a gajillion
voices in two minutes that might be able to help
break some of your stuff? – I’ll tell you, the
biggest problem, I think, and this is a brand new thought, is that we are, as
humans, we’re copiers, we’re imitators. So if you wade
into the internet, what kind of thinking
style are you gonna see? The worst. And people will imitate it. So they’ll say, for example,
“Hey, your side did X.” And what’s the most
common response? Your side did X. What did that help? That helped nothing. That wasn’t even on the topic. You didn’t even talk
about your topic. – But if they’re gonna
do it, we have to do it. – So some of it is, of
course, power, and influence, and persuasion and all that. Nobody’s trying to think. You have to be able to weed out, okay, was anybody even trying, or were they just persuading? – Do you think most of us
just don’t wanna try, though, at some level? I mean, most people
just kinda… They don’t wanna think
about things that seriously because that brings up a
lotta deep existential stuff. – Yeah, maybe, maybe. There are lots of reasons. We don’t wanna be wrong. We don’t like to be embarrassed. We don’t like to
change our mind. We don’t wanna
disappoint the team. And we’re influenced
by what we see, so we just join in and say, “Well, that’s what
my team’s doing. “I guess I’ll do some of that.” – You talk about some of the dumb ideas
that are floating around, that thus create
our own bubbles. I wanted to go through
a couple of them. Because we hear
these all the time, and they sorta sound right but you don’t quite
think they are right. – We know when history
will repeat itself, and when it won’t. We hear this all the time. – History repeats. – Yes, history repeats itself. – And because it has a phrase,
and we’ve heard the phrase, we give it weight. Because the brain will
say, “Well, it’s a saying. “I’m pretty sure I’ve seen
that on a bumper sticker “so there must be
something about that.” But it’s an illusion
caused by the fact that we don’t notice when
history doesn’t repeat, which is most of the time. And why is it that
history doesn’t repeat? Because it can’t. There’s never two situations
that are the same. The variables are changed. And if nothing else has changed, you saw what went
wrong the last time, so you fix it this time. It’s a complete illusion that
we can predict the future because this time is
like that last time. The most you can do is say people are still selfish,
stupid, and all those things. So if you put them in a
situation where they can steal, well, sure, they’ll steal. And not everybody, but if you have enough people
introduced to a situation where you can steal something, somebody’s gonna
take a run at it. But that’s not really
history repeating. – Right, so you would say a better way to say it
would be something like, themes repeat themselves, just because it’s
based in our nature, not the specific event? – I would even make
it smaller than that. I would say people are people. You know they’re
gonna be selfish and all the qualities of people, so any situation you put them in you should say, “Well, let’s
look at cause and effect.” If I put that person
where the free money is, I should expect
money to be taken, but not because history repeats. There’s just a simple
cause and effect. – So if it doesn’t
repeat itself, what would you say to all
the history majors right now that are listening to this? What would be the point
of being a historian if not to have some sort
of roadmap for the future? – Well, indeed, history is what prevents it from
repeating, in some sense, because you know
what didn’t work. So you might see history
repeat when it works. If something worked before you might see somebody
try to try it again. But even you take
anything, like North Korea. What was the main
thing people said when President
Trump got elected? It was, “Well,
talking to North Korea “will never work,”
blah blah blah. And maybe it won’t. But he got it further
than anybody else. He got it into a personal level. It wasn’t anything like history. So no matter how many
times history had repeated, you introduce this whole new
variable of President Trump and then history
doesn’t count anymore. – What do you make
of that concept, that people who said
one thing two years ago say the complete opposite? I don’t mean that they’ve
flipped all of their beliefs, but that it’s
always a team thing. It’s like, if Obama
had talked to… Gone to North Korea and
talked to Kim Jong-un, a certain set of people, the
Republicans in this case, would have been
like, “He’s crazy. “We can’t talk to these people.” If Trump does it, we can do it. You can flip that the other way. I guess that goes to
what you’re saying about the team thing. But do you think people realize the sort of absurdity? I’m not talking about
evolving over a period of time with a certain set of opinions. I’m talking about because
the players are different that you just completely
take an opposite side. – One of the great mysteries is you watch somebody who
doesn’t agree with you, and they’re doing that crazy
thinking like you mentioned. And you watch them, and
you think to yourself, “Is that real?
(Dave laughing) “Do they really think that?” And I spend time doing that too. But one of the
advantages I have is, having studied hypnosis, I understand people to be
irrational most of the time. And I understand them
to be rationalizers, and I understand confirmation
bias and cognitive dissonance. So my take is that
most of the time they actually believe
what they’re saying, because they can’t see it. They’re the ones who
are blinded to it so that it looks like
it makes sense to them. – Do you think
there’s some reason, like an obvious
psychological reason that the people who
seem most obsessed by politics on a
day-to-day basis, and I’m not talking
the broad-themed stuff, but as you said before, you’re really
uninterested in politics. But the people that are obsessed
with the nitty gritty… (clears throat) Excuse me. The nitty gritty
what happened today, what happened tomorrow, or
what’s happening tomorrow, there’s a reason that
they’re so miserable. Because it’s sort of… It’s like an untenable system that they’re playing
with all the time. – Well, you know, people are different so it’s
probably all different reasons. I do it for entertainment. And I think other people
are drawn in for the fight. They like the fight. What’s my fight today? Ooh, there’s a new headline. Let me get into that fight. There’s definitely
a, I don’t know, dopamine or serotonin
hit that people get just from making a good point. It’s like, “Ah, got that guy “who said something bad
about this celebrity. “Ah, got him.” – Got him. Somehow I think if
this was a real fight, like involving weapons, they
would be much more reserved. What do you think?
– I know I would. (both chuckling)
– Yeah, exactly. Okay, let’s plow through
a couple of these others. This is a good one because we hear some version
of this all the time online. We can tell the difference between evidence
and coincidences. – Yeah. We go through our life
thinking that things matter. Let me give a perfect example. If you were a fiction writer and you were writing a book,
or even reading a book, and somebody put on a watch, you’d say to yourself,
“Oh, later, that watch…” – [Dave] Something’s
going on with the watch. – Pay attention to the watch because the author
included that for a reason. So it’s easy for some people
to have some experiences to imagine
everything’s connected. Musicians, poets, artists, they imagine a connected world because that’s
what they live in. Whereas the economist,
the scientist, the lawyer, if they’re not advocating, would say, “Oh, you’ve
gotta look at these. “You’ve gotta look at all
these coincidence individually “and say, ‘All right, is this
real, or just a coincidence?'” We’re creatures who think
coincidence matters. And if we don’t really
police ourselves we create a bubble by imagining our little coincidences
are meaningful. I give one example in the book. I was walking home one day, and I had bought some Sharpies, because I like them for
a variety of reasons. I took it out of my
bag, literally was
holding in my hand, and Fox News was on, and Greg
Gutfeld was on, on his show. And he says, “I love Sharpies. “I really want Sharpies.” I’m like, seriously? While it’s in my hand. And how many times have
you seen a TV show… – But Scott, there are no
coincidence, I thought? What could this mean? So you’re saying that’s not
the universe talking to you. Because we’ve all
had that moment. And you go, “Whoa,
that has some meaning.” But the way, I’ve been on
Gutfeld’s show many times. He loves Sharpies. – He does. – He’s got a whole
thing of Sharpies. There’s Sharpies
in all his drawers. They’re just filled
up with Sharpies. – He and I could have a club of just people
who love Sharpies. – But do you think
truly that there’s… Do you think there’s no chance that there’s meaning
in that sort of thing? Like, I know the Sharpie
example is kind of simple. But, you know, you’re having
some deep, deep thought, and you’re watching TV and then suddenly a character says exactly what
you’re thinking. Now,
I get it, I get it. You’re just talking about
sort of law of averages also. Like, every now and again
this is gonna happen. You’re never gonna notice the
ones when it doesn’t happen, which is all day long. I get that. But do you think that there’s
no meaning or value to that? – Well, not the
examples that we gave. There are no meanings to those, unless we’re a simulation,
and we’re software, and there’s a little
code reuse going on. – Maybe we’ll end with that.
– Can’t rule that out. – Let’s end with the
simulation stuff. Let’s stay with
the book for now, but we’ll go to
simulation at the end. – Short of that, it can mean something
in a criminal situation. If somebody gets killed, and their spouse has booked
a flight out that morning, (both chuckling) and they didn’t pack a bag, maybe that means something. So certainly in a
political context… I’m sorry, the legal context,
you have to track them down. – What about just in
a personal context? Like if you find
meaning in something that may be purely coincidental, or however else you
wanna describe it, ridiculous, or whatever. But if you personally
find some meaning in it. – Here’s my advice. We’re bombarded with
coincidences all the time. When they work in your
favor you should say that, “Well, that means something. “That means I should
write this book. “That’s telling me that I’m
gonna get a check in the mail.” And if it looks a coincidence that’s telling you
something bad’s gonna happen you say, “Pfft, coincidence.” – All right, seems fair enough. The simplest explanation
is usually true. – People like to win
arguments by saying, “Yours is complicated, but
mine’s the simple one.” And the problem is, first of all, the world
sometimes is complicated. Pick any major thing in the
news, it’s pretty complicated. But the real problem
is that we all think our explanation
is the simple one. That’s where the cognitive
problem comes in. My example I use is, “How
did the world get here?” Well, ask the creationist. God did it. You can’t get any
simpler than that. God did it. Ask the scientist
who’s the evolutionist, “How did it all get here?” Gradual change. Big Bang, simple. Which one is the simple one? Well, everybody thinks their
explanation is the simple one. Especially the
one-variable people who will look at a
complicated thing and say, “Well, one variable, got it. “Simple, it’s that
one variable.” – So which was it,
God or Big Bang? – Simulation.
(both laughing) – Again, we’re gonna… I do wanna do… – Try to keep that away from
me. You can’t, you can’t. – We will end with
simulation then. But sometimes we need
some simple answers in a complex world,
do you think? – Well, it helps if
you can simplify, but you don’t
wanna oversimplify. And then how do you
know, how do you know? So every situation is
a little bit different. But certainly, if
you’re looking at, let’s say, climate change, I don’t wanna get into
that in any detail, but to just say… I’m shaking my head because I
can barely say this out loud. One of the things I hear
the most from the skeptics is that the scientists forgot
to account for the sun. (chuckles) The sun. – Wait, they claim that the
scientists forgot about the sun? – That they didn’t
account for solar flares or solar activity. And I always say the same
thing, which is, all right. It’s your job to figure
out why the Earth is warm. You thought of the sun. – [Dave] The sun
might be in there. – You might have
gotten something wrong, but it wasn’t because
you didn’t look at it. You thought of the sun. So come up with a
better skepticism. Skepticism is fine. But if you simplify it into, “I think they forgot
to look at the sun,” you’re not helping. – It’s funny you bring up
climate change, though. Without going too far
down that rabbit hole, it reminds me of something
like the Paris Accords, first when they got signed and then when they
got retracted, or whatever you wanna
call it, by Trump. It was like, all of these
people, it all sounds good. We’re gonna cut these emissions. We’re gonna do this,
we’ll pay for this. It all sounds good
in a simple sense, if you don’t think about it. And then we are now
out of the Accords. From what I understand,
we’re actually exceeding many of the limitations
that were originally signed. And there was no mechanism to force anyone to
actually do anything. It was literally just
a piece of paper. But all these people
were screaming about it like it was the
end of the world. And we see this
with net neutrality. It was the end of the world. Is your internet still working? – Barely.
(Dave laughing) – Oh, right, you had a
Wi-Fi problem this morning. But that, basically, we
go from end to the world, to end of the world, to end
of the world situations. – Yeah. We’re locked into whatever’s
the scariest thing. What’s the scariest thing? With the example of the
Paris Climate Accord, if you have, let’s say, more
experience in this world, probably nothing gets
solved with a meeting. (both chuckling) And we had an agreement,
and then everybody kept it. That’s not the real world. And I think– – But that just makes a lot
of people feel good, right? When I’ve mentioned this and then people
confront me about it, and then I say to them,
“Well, what was in it,” or was any country, actually, was there any mechanism to
force countries to abide by it? Or what has happened
since we got out? I mean, just basic questions. And I’m not saying I’m an
expert in this by any stretch. But just asking these
simple questions. People that are
screaming about it suddenly admit they
know nothing about it. (Scott chuckles) – I think they trusted
their side too much, because they’ve
heard it’s important. They hear it on the
news all the time. Well, it must be important. Do I need to know the details? All the smart people
just said it’s important. Generals and
politicians, senators. If they’re all saying
it’s important, and you’re stuck in your silo
and that’s all you’re hearing, it’s reasonable to think it is without you knowing
all the details. But like you said, you can
uncover that flaw so easily. – What do you do with the people once you’ve uncovered the flaw, and now they’re
kinda freaking out? Because they don’t want
that to happen, right? That’s kinda scary. – Well, I do the method
that you just described. You do it in question form. If you do it in a statement
form, it bounces off. If you do it in
question form it’s like, what was it about the
climate agreement, the Paris Climate Agreement, that you thought
was the good part? What was the part that was
really gonna make a difference? How would that affect China versus how it’d affect
the United States? What would it do to employment? What would it do to our economy? So I just ask the questions and let people talk
themselves out of it. You could affect people’s
confidence in the short term, and then they have to go back and re-engineer their thoughts. And sometimes they might change. – Sometimes.
– Sometimes. – Not always,
definitely not always. You’ll appreciate this. A couple weeks ago I
was having a debate. I was having conversation
with an old friend about the trans issue. And I said I’m completely
fine with trans people. Obviously I want everyone
to be treated equally, and with the same
laws, and with respect, and all of those things. I said, all I’m saying is that we can’t say that
biology doesn’t exist, that there’s a difference
between male and female. That’s all I said. And he said to me, “Dave, you’re not thinking
with quantum physics.” (Scott chuckling) And I said, “Could you
tell me a little bit “about how quantum physics
is related to this?” And he goes, “Now you’re
just trying to get me.” (Scott laughing)
And I thought that is just the perfect example
of all of this. He just had this idea
that quantum physics has something to do, if I could just think
in some other realm, then somehow biology
of this world, but actually have
nothing to do anything. And when I asked him about it, he didn’t know anything
about it either. – You might be the best
debater of all time because you chased him into
another dimension of reality. He was like, “Oh, I’m out. “This reality is not
serving me well.” – And then he just disappeared.
He was just a smoke. – Just go on.
– And that was it. Stay in your channel. – Yeah. The worst advice you could
ever give or ever get is stick to your day job, stay in your channel, stay in your lane. I hear this all the time, especially when I
transitioned from cartooning, and even before that, when I tried to transition from my cubicle
life to cartooning. Not a lot of support. Not a lot of people saw that
that would work out for me. But if you imagine what
would the world look like if everybody took that advice. Well, people making bicycles would never try to
make an airplane, for one. Steve Jobs wouldn’t be inventing any companies
and computers. So you’re already down
the lane, the line, and people leaving their lane was all the good stuff. Now, I also tell people to
build their talent stacks, I call it. If you’re good at
this, or a few things, leave your lane a little bit and pick up a few other skills. You might get embarrassed,
you might get tired, but boy are you gonna be happy when you’ve got combined skills that are practically
a superpower. – Is that another one of
those things where it just depends a little bit
about how you’re wired? Like some people are
just all in on one thing and that is how they
can operate their best? And some people are a little
more designed that they can maybe change
careers more easily, or just learn what their stack
is a little bit more easily, and some people
just can’t do it? Or are you saying that’s
always your job to overcome it? – There’s certainly a
personal difference. There are some people
who just wanna stay doing what they’re doing,
and do the best they can. And if you’re Tiger Woods,
that’s a great idea. Tiger Woods doesn’t also
need to know accounting. Well, except maybe it would help him. Somebody else is managing his
money and that’s never safe. You can usually tell if
you’re in that situation. Yeah, I need to just run on
this horse as long as I can. But for most of us, in
just ordinary life… I can only be a
high-end cartoonist because I assembled a
bunch of pretty good skills that anybody could have done. I draw like a, you know, a
drunken monkey, I like to say. But it got better over time. I got better tools,
figured out how to do it. I didn’t have any
experience writing humor, but I figured it out over time. And I had some
business experience, so I had a canvas to write on. I’m a perfect example of
a bunch of mediocre skills that just work
pretty well together. – I wanna back up to
something we started with here about your career, because it does
fit “Loser Think”. The idea that a guy
who, I’m guessing, you were probably decent
at both of your day jobs when they told you… Halfway decent? Probably not totally in
dereliction of your duties. Fair to say?
– I showed up on time. – Okay, you showed up on time. So you were probably pretty
decent at what you did. The idea that they
said, “Okay, well,” at two different jobs, “Diversity, you’re in effect
a straight white male, “You’re running
out of room here,” that strikes me as the worst
sort of loser think of the day. Like people have
tricked everybody into thinking that
that diversity matters. – You know, I surprise people when I tell them that I’m not… I don’t have a feeling
about those times that you would expect. I don’t feel like
society made a mistake. Because sometimes you
need to use a hammer, and sometimes you
need to use a scalpel, and you have to
know the difference. In those days when there was
literally just no diversity in senior management of two
major companies in the Bay Area, for the newspaper to
get on them about it, I think that’s how it happened,
the newspaper got on them, perfectly appropriate. And for them to say, “Look, “this is a
sledgehammer situation, “and today you’re the nail.” I remember thinking
of it as like, that’s actually a pretty
good societal goal. And in fact we’re much
closer to that reality, far better diversity. I think we’re better off. I think it was good. I just happened to
be on the wrong side of the sledgehammer at that. So, while it was bad for me, I don’t have an activist opinion that it shouldn’t have happened because I think it got
us to a better place. – That’s interesting,
but do you think that part of the problem is that we take a sledgehammer
to everything now? I don’t fully agree
with the premise there because I just think those
things are bad no matter what. It’s just too against
the individual for
my personal taste. But I’ll go with you. Do you think that
the problem now is that so much has changed… We have diversity
pretty much everywhere. In many ways it benefits you. And I’m not talking about
diversity of thought. I’m talking about diversity of your color and gender
and the rest of it. But we’re still always
hitting everything with a sledgehammer now, and we don’t go in with
the sort of softer tools. – I’m very much… I guess my feeling is that if you’ve got slavery, you
need your biggest weapon, the Civil War. If you’ve got no civil rights then you need the
civil right movement and march in the streets. It’s smaller than
the nuclear weapon. And I think we’ve
gotten to the point where you’re talking
about things like
institutional racism. In which case, my preference
is to teach strategy. Because there does exist some amount of bias, et cetera, that will affect some
amount of people. But we now live in a world where everybody can find a place where the bias works
for them. (chuckles) There’s no Fortune 500
company who doesn’t wanna hire a qualified woman, black
person, gay, LGBTQ, you name it. They all want them. If you walk in the door and you’ve got the right
degree, right experience, and you say, “And
also,” you got a job. So if you’re not
teaching strategy instead of worrying about this one place you can’t get a job, leave there. – How do you move, then? If you’ve succeeded
using the hammer, it’s hard to give up
that hammer, right? – Well, in the political terms, going big is always good. You wanna be AOC if you’re
gonna be the new politician. It’s like, “What’s the
biggest thing I can say “to set everybody’s
hair on fire? “And then if I
need to back up…” – The world’s ending in
12 years, don’t forget it. – That’s pretty good. Persuasion wise, pretty good. And then you shrink it
back as you need it. Try not to… Try not to confuse the
hyperbole and the politics with what’s the right tool. – Right. Do you think AOC is just
some other version of Trump, some reverse version of Trump,
just using those same things? – She is the real deal. I identified her early on. People who have
similar backgrounds, Mike Cernovich, for example, almost identically,
the same time, we just said, “Uh-oh,
watch out for this one.” This was before she was AOC. She didn’t even have
the AOC name yet. And sure enough, she
was like a rocket and everybody could see it. I believe her backstory
is that she was selected in almost an American
Idol fashion. – Yeah. If people don’t know,
there are YouTube videos that people can check this out. They basically picked her because she ticked
off all the boxes. – So out of all the candidates
she was the strongest one, so we should not be surprised that she performs better
than a random person. – As a guy, though, that likes, or at the very least understands
Trump’s use of persuasion and go big, scale back, now watching AOC do it, and I’m guessing
you probably agree with many less of her policies, are you worried that that’s
all politics will become? Or has the ship already sailed? Is that just where we
are now? I guess so. – Well, first of
all, I would say she uses hyperbole the
same way Trump did. When Trump was
running for president and he was talking about
rounding up 14 million illegals I just said, “That’s not
gonna happen.” (chuckles) So I never really
took that seriously. When she says we’re
gonna die in 12 years, I don’t really take
that seriously. But are they persuading
in the right direction? Is it good to have
tight border security that you can decide to open
it up as much as you need or close it when you need to? Yes, that would just
be a good system. No matter how many people
you decide to let in… – That’s where the
conversation is. – That’s a separate question. Similar with AOC, she’s got
an interest in climate change. I think the scientists
have made a case that CO2 warms things. I know some people watching
this will disagree. But most of the
scientists say that. Now, there’s certainly
questions about the predictions and what’s gonna
happen in the future, and I would differ there. But she is moving
people in a way that they weren’t moved before. It probably is an issue
worthy of movement. Some of the crazy things, I think she would
have to pull back if she were a national
candidate, and I
think she would. – But is there just
a general danger, we don’t have to make this
about her specifically, that if politics just
becomes people throwing out just every theory without really knowing
anything behind it… So I guess I can’t make
that not really about her because I just don’t
think she’s that bright. I just don’t. I think she’s being… They selected her, and now I
think she’s being manipulated, and they took a
sort of pretty girl who just likes getting up
there and saying anything. And that that strikes me
as actually dangerous. – First of all, I
completely disagree on her intelligence
and capability. – Well, no, I’m not saying
her capability’s not good. I think she’s playing a role. So the capability is there. I think the actual
intelligence behind it, I don’t think, is that great. I think maybe
we’re talking about a different type of
intelligence here. – Certainly she has the
political intelligence. She has the psychological
intelligence. Social intelligence. And she obviously knows
more than most people about the topics
because of her job. But I would say that she’s a productive
part of the conversation. Because you need
somebody that strong on these big issues
like climate change so that you know, you know, you’re getting a
good back and forth, and then meet somewhere
in the sensible middle. So I think she’s a productive
part of the conversation, even when I don’t
agree with her. – All right, let’s shift. – Let me give you a test.
– Yes. – Here’s a test.
– Okay. – A very simple test to find
out if she’s smart or not. The answer to climate change, even if you don’t
think it’s a problem, is generation for nuclear, or
at least being pro-nuclear. If you see her never come out in favor of nuclear as part of– – Ah, I like where
you’re going with this. – As part of the solution, then she has abandoned reason. Because even the people
on her side, Corey Booker, there’s several people
running for president. – Most of them are
not, thought, right? Most of them are not. – It’s half and
half, or something. I think three I know, I can’t
remember, but maybe Yang. But some of the
smartest people– – Yeah, I think Yang is four. I think. We should confirm that.
– I believe so. But some of the smartest people
who are running as Democrats are already there, and really, that will tell you. Is she just playing
it for effect or does she want to
solve the problem? – That’s an interesting take. I guess we’ll see in the
next couple months, or… Well, I guess we
ultimately find out depending on where
Bernie falls against it, but I’m pretty sure Bernie’s
against most nuclear, right? – Bernie’s against. – But she’s now a
Bernie surrogate, so maybe she’s not as
smart as you think. – I understand she
started with Bernie, and she’s probably
mostly influenced by him. And Bernie, by the way, I have so much
respect for Bernie while hating his policies. Man, that guy’s a
force of nature. He really changed
the conversation. I don’t want it to go
where he wants it to go, but I love the fact that he’s gonna introduce
this body of thought. – All right, all this
sensible talk aside, let’s shift, for these
last few minutes, into the simulation. I see this conversation
happening a little bit here and there, and on some
other podcasts and things. I don’t know that we’ve
really ever talked about it on this show before. What do you mean, the world
could be a simulation? What is all this crazy talk? – Let me say, first of all, that smart people
also agree with this. Elon Musk, for example,
has a similar view. This comes from Nick
Bostrom, a physicist. So serious people. And in fact, in Silicon
Valley, near where I am, it’s very common for people
to believe this is true, but you don’t talk
about it too much. And you’re gonna find out why. – Probably dinner parties, yeah. – You’ll find out why
people don’t talk about it. The idea is that we, our current world is
approaching a place where we could create
a software simulation of little creatures
in a simulated world that are just software who would act and believe, if you could use that
word, that they’re real. Now, maybe we’re
not quite there, but you could certainly imagine, in your lifetime,
we’ll be there, easily. Maybe 10 years, 20 years. The thinking is that
if it ever happens, by any civilization, it
will happen lots of times. And if it’s such
a good simulation the creatures in the simulation will someday create
their own simulation. Now, what would you look for to find out if we’re
a software simulation who thinks we’re real,
or an original species? Well, here are some
of the things you’d
do if it’s software. First thing you’d do is you would not create
all of the history. You would create it on demand. For example, if we
discovered a new planet, that would never be
written until we see it. Now, in physics, can we
show that an observation causes a wave to collapse? I don’t know what I’m talking
about right now, by the way. (Dave laughing) I hope nobody’s watching this because when I get into
physics it gets all– – Yeah, yeah. You had me til wave collapse. – But it’s generally true
that you need a subjective, or a machine,
observation of something. – Pause for one second. You have a little
spit over here. Let’s just… Yeah, okay. All right. Jump from wave collapse. – The idea is that,
even in physics, we know that you
need an observer, or a machine observer, I think, to collapse reality. In other words, things don’t
exist except in probability, on the quantum level, as if I know what I’m
talking about here, again, until somebody observes them. So that’s exactly how
you would build software. It doesn’t exist
until you see it. You would also say, all right, you little software
people can’t get outside the reality that we defined. Because if you could, you
could see what you’re in. Can you get to the
edge of the universe? You can’t.
– You’ll never get there. – Because speed of light will
keep you from ever doing it. So you see all of
these coincidences that are exactly compatible
with how a software programmer would program a world. Then you look at the odds. The odds of being an original when there will
be so many copies, one in a trillion,
one in a million? We don’t know. Maybe it’s one in three. But the odds are certainly
much favoring the simulation and not that we’re
an original species. – So basically that’s
the plot of “The Matrix”. If we had to whittle
this into something here. That we’re sort of the batteries
for this digital thing. – In “The Matrix”
they’re real people, and they’re also a simulation, and they’re sort of coexisting. In this, we’re
just a simulation. – Would it matter? You know what I mean? Let’s say we found out
right now, we’re in it. Let’s say we became self-aware
within the simulation. Well, we’re still in the
simulation no matter what. I guess that could alter
how we would deal with the simulations we would
create going forward. – Let me ask you this. And this is just for fun. Don’t anybody take
this too seriously. One of the things
you might imagine is if somebody realized
they’re in a simulation, that they could hack it. Who believes in the simulation? Elon Musk. How’s he doing? (chuckling) – Ah, I see what
you’re saying here. – He’s sending a rocket
to Mars, for God’s sakes. – He put a Tesla in space
just because he could. – How am I doing? Dilbert worked out okay. I’ve got the best book
that’s ever been written, according to me. Things are going
really well with me. So look for people who
believe in the simulation and then say to yourself,
“How’s it going?” And you’re gonna find a pattern that will blow your brain out. – So you’re saying whether I believe in the
simulation or not, I probably should just try to believe in it a little bit more. – The people who– You’re saying if
this is a simulation, that if I believe
it’s a simulation this video will be monetized. I think that’s
what you’re saying. – Let’s concentrate really hard. Monetize, monetize. Yes, I believe that
you will find a way to vast monetization
if you accept, accept, pray with me, the simulation. – That, Scott Adams, is how you
end an interview on YouTube. You guys can follow Scott
@ScottAdamsSays on the Twitter, whether this is a
simulation or not. And don’t forget to share this
video, and all our videos, with friends, family, and foes. You could just click
the little share thing right down there. Thanks, everybody. If you’re looking
for more honest and thoughtful
conversations about politics instead of nonstop yelling,
check out our politics playlist. And if you wanna
watch full interviews on a variety of topics, watch our full episode playlist all right over here. And to get notified
of all future videos be sure to subscribe and
click the notification bell.

Maurice Vega

100 Responses

  1. AOC like Greta thurnberg are purely puppets that are in the spotlight purely because they are supported and promoted by big money globalists. They are dangerous propagandists. The only good they could serve is to expose the globalist manipulation behind the levers of power. Political, economic, education, media, etc..etc… That is a good thing. Otherwise lies being promoted as facts is never productive in a healthy society.

  2. you can talk shit about white people in youtube comments and they wont get deleted, but if you say that black people are 12% of the US population and are responsible for over half the murder and robberies, they delete your comments.

  3. 35:30 ish — What they're talking about here is something Jung calls synchronicity. Jung gets a bit mystical about it which is very grating to modern sensibilities (although if you think about mysticism as stemming from deep synchronicity, instead of the other way around, it makes more sense). I think that it isn't right to either dismiss synchronicity (as Adams seems to) or believe it's more powerful than it is (as Jung seems to).

    The fact is we're sub-rational (or, intuitive) in the same way that a software AI is sub-rational. We make connections. We see patterns. Much of the time there is no physical mechanic (no real connection) underlying those patterns (we then call the pattern a "superstition", or "false hypothesis".) But much of the time the pattern is simply badly framed or impossible to consciously articulate, and the connections form a real pattern based on a physical mechanic we have not yet discovered or thought through.

  4. You might be the best debater of all time, because you changed him into another dimension of reality – Scott Adams

    EDIT: Scott's assessment of AOC's political intelligence leads me to believe he has never listened to her speak on economics or general knowledge of how the government functions. I am very impressed with how well he thinks, but I cannot get on board with his take on AOC in the slightest. He obviously did not see her take on the tax breaks for the Amazon deal she destroyed for New York. Many billions of dollars lost to the area and estimated 25K in jobs…. gone, due to AOC and her idiocy.

    It never ceases to amaze me how leftists view all things life through a political prism. This is such an sad way to exist 🙁

  5. Expecting real news from the legacy news corporations haha..Oh, he's serious? Let me laugh even harder HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    Don't trust these mofos. Both CNN and Fox lies out their teeth. I didn't have to watch long to figure out that dude was full fo shit. He writes a comic. Why are you interviewing him on politics? It's like asking some actor what he think about vaccines. Yes, we knew where that ended. If I'm not mistaken the anti-vaxx movement started with some idiot celebrity, at least they helped kickstart it to the big leages so to speak.

  6. Throwing out every theory without knowing anything, um that's been politics forever. The level of knowing anything is the most significant level of analysis. We can't know everything, and we can't know what we don't know without the ignorance coming against us.

  7. The Church of the Cathode Ray came to mind when he said pray with me for the Simulation.
    It's interesting that he proposes agnosticism of the simulation, like those who behave AS IF god exists, just in case.

  8. I miss the time when news reporter would report and let the regular folks form their own opinion, now everyone wants to be in the spotlight but for the wrong reasons, looking for the next book deal that will make them millionaires or just simply relevant.

  9. I love Scott. I really do, but again with the AOC intelligence? Look, we have all heard AOC in enough interviews and scenarios where it’s clear that she’s not intelligent. She has exposed her lack of intelligence again and again. I believe that her lack of intelligence was actually a box that was ticked when she was selected by her handlers because they knew she would have to deliver their message in a convincing way and selling it without looking doubtful of what she would be forced to say.

  10. scott presenting himself as a liberal and left of bernie gets pretty cringe at times. I know he's just trying to pace and lead the left, but it makes him sound silly at times.

  11. The Simulation….!

    Imagine: God is the coder, the laws of Physics are the construct for the laboratory where the “servers” exist, and DNA is the the biological code for all life that enables “natural intelligence” that has always existed to evolve through experience (learning) in this physical realm of Physics to advanced higher beings like that of the coder.

    Simulation would be the process by which the Gods take unorganized natural intelligence and enable it to be formed into beings (entities) that evolve into perfected beings like themselves.

    This earth would be but one of “worlds without number” by which the process of programming Natural Intelligence into All Knowing, All Powerful, beings is accomplished.

    Our limitations of knowledge in this layer of simulation is ultimately limited to what we’re able to observe and test in this layer.

    Interestingly enough, there is a religion that off-handedly subscribes to a variation of this doctrine. Do your research and figure out who they are.

  12. The Simulation….!

    Imagine: God is the coder, the laws of Physics are the construct for the laboratory where the “servers” exist, and DNA is the the biological code for all life that enables “natural intelligence” that has always existed to evolve through experience (learning) in this physical realm of Physics to advanced higher beings like that of the coder.

    Simulation would be the process by which the Gods take unorganized natural intelligence and enable it to be formed into beings (entities) that evolve into perfected beings like themselves.

    This earth would be but one of “worlds without number” by which the process of programming Natural Intelligence into All Knowing, All Powerful, beings is accomplished.

    Our limitations of knowledge in this layer of simulation is ultimately limited to what we’re able to observe and test in this layer.

    Interestingly enough, there is a religion that off-handedly subscribes to a variation of this doctrine. Do your research and figure out who they are.

  13. Okay so Dilbert is nice and comfortable because he made a very very good living, it was a little expensive for him , to express his opinion regarding Trump's skills, but he's able to live comfortably in life. Well what about the rest of us? And this moron says he's left of Bernie Sanders? This guy is such a selfish leftist buffoon. Where does he think this is going to lead to… I just can't stand these people. Humor is dead and he's so laid-back about it?

  14. scott is full of shit about climate change he still thinks science is done by consensuses how can you possibly think they thought about the sun and concluded that while the sun controlled or had an impact on climate in the past …. the last 100 years climate has only been controlled by MAN MADE co2 think about it co2 is just one of many factors and in all likely hood a minor contributor admit that you took the financial hit because of your support for trump you feel perhaps you cannot take the hit for climate it is called follow the money smart people if they have looked in on the subject would not conclude a catastrophe is just around the corner get out of your bubble just because science has said something does not make it so

  15. FNN,CNN,ABC,NBC,CBS….100% commentary.These are NOT news agencies. Real news reports the facts ONLY. I can't believe that I find NPR to be the most unbiased news casts.
    Local news is far better and means more to the individual. We're supposed to be a bottom up government not top down.

  16. Man, was really thinking this guy has a rational, smart message and has a good grasp on the world. Then he said he believes AOC is intelligent and is a productive part of the climate conversation…. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he just hasn’t seen her mask drop as many times as I have.

  17. You've stated two things Americans NEED to do; watch both Fox & a left wing equivalent.
    ……..and recognize the two screen dichotomy 🕵️

  18. I know Scott want's to be nice about AOC and not call her a dummy but the REAL test of her intelligence is any time she gets knocked off script. When she isn't regurgitating words that have been written for her and has to answer as she goes… she fails miserably and in epic fashion. The word salad answers she gives in any of these Q&A's are evidence. The live streams that she does are evidence. Outside of creating Twitter quips, which are certainly helped by her handlers, and repeating lines written for her she is completely exposed.

  19. Love you guys, but nothing worst than an artist talking about Physics! The ''Observer Theory'' of the ''collapse wave'' have been debunked and explained properly by Nassim Harramein. The rest was lovely. Thanks !

  20. 38:40 This is where someone needs to challenge him to remind him he is not an expert. The "skeptics" that say this, are those that have actually bothered to listen to SCIENTISTS that are speaking out about how there is an effort to push lies about climate change…the most decorated Scientist ALIVE, Freeman Dyson has for the last 7 years been trying to wake people up to how all the climate models are not taking into account changes in the SUN and also how SCIENCE SHOWS that CO2 is NOT harmful, but GOOD. And there actually is 1000s of scientists that have spoken about this and most of them had their careers destroyed and that includes each and every single scientist that CREATED THE CLIMATE MODELS! 52:00 oh shit, nevermind this guy is a fucking moron if he believes AOC is intelligent and automatically knows more because "its her job"…a person that needed to have it explained to her that crossing the border illegally…was against the law.

  21. Any “friend” that throws you under the bus for your political stance was never your friend in the first place…I’m a republican and my Democrat friends are well aware of my beliefs and we still get along great.

  22. From the FAQ: "Is nuclear a part of this?
    A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible."

  23. option 1: The guy who created this simulation has the user name "God". Option 2: at the end this simulation the answer is 42. Option 3: Epstein didn't kill himself.

  24. I just saw a guy get chewed out as a "racist" on an official reddit support community for the game Battletech for asking why he cannot play the game as a white man (you can't) or hire white pilots (you can't) and the closest is a light skinned asian. I was only about 1 hour into owning the game so I refunded it when I saw that. We MUST stop financially rewarding people who are racist like that, Hairbrained (the developers) have gone on record saying they're doing it intentionally and are happy about it. Your entire crew are non white, and your main tech has a hijab. As someone pointed out, apparently "diverse" means everyone having brown hair brown eyes and brown skin with NO variation. Idk but I thought diverse meant something diff.

  25. YouTube now discriminate against gay, black, Hispanic, women , peaceful Imam and many others. Proves liberals are the most racist bigoted people on earth. Trump2020 Pence2024

  26. Scott shills for nuclear energy (I presume he is getting paid for it) even though he is utterly clueless about the energy space. He also has no clue about models. So much for untrained brains.

  27. Rubin: "Hank Azaria, the greatest voice actor of all time!"
    Mel Blanc: "I'll just go fuck myself then."

    Get a grip. Also, is it me or has the Rubin Report been sub par for months now?

  28. If you don't watch FOX or CNN you're NOT out of the loop, the only thing you're missing is what the elites are trying to brainwash the public on.

  29. I really don't think knowing Trump was going to win 2016 indicates anything special about you. From the day he announced, it was blatantly obvious to me that he would win. It was obvious to nearly everyone who voted for him. What was amazing about this was that every single one of these people knew the media was lying about him all along.

  30. Scott ruined it when he said he thinks AOC is intelligent. smh. She is a complete fool. He clearly has never seen an AOC interview. Whether it's "unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs, or the "Israeli Occupation of Palestine". What she is brilliant in is bullshitting with a straight face and being a unequivocal leftist. p.s. Lets not forget she thought her garbage disposal was a a monster under her sink.

  31. As someone with a bachelor's degree in history (and I don't assume to be a "professional" historian), I have to disagree with his point that history doesn't repeat itself or that we can't use it as a rubric for today because situations are different. History exists in a series of waves, so-to-speak, and what is always constant is human nature. Although the current situation may be tweaked, it is always helpful to be mindful of the past because human beings don't actually change all that much. I think he's referring more to chronological history (knowing dates and facts) rather than a deeper analytical historical understanding.

  32. They dont forget to look at the sun when studying climate change .. They choose not to look at it .. Bc .. Then they can blame mankind. It's politics seeping into the science world. ..we are in a grand solar minimum. Climate change solved.

  33. FABULOUS!!!! Truly fabulous interview.
    Scott has been doing a lot of interviews… and this one is the best. That's not a surprise. But I still like to say it.
    The simulation is another word for The Universe, The Force, Intelligent Design… and G-d. It is part of human nature to seek understanding of the space between the particles.

  34. Just as the generals tend to fight the last war, we tend to fight the wars on racism and poverty with tools that were established during the Civil Rights movement and the War on Poverty. The system is sluggish to adapt. People have gigs that depend on the old paradigms. If we want to really improve things, we'll step outside all of that mentally and retool.

  35. A question was asked, "Have you ever met a Biden supporter?" Yes. He has a lot of support among black people I know here in Virginia.

  36. Adams here speaks on things he doesn't believe, so as to not get too harassed by the mob. Because smart people say they believe in an alternate universe, then he's going to say he does too. Our university professors are supposed to be smart, yet listen to the not so smart things they spew at their students. He says to listen to both sides of the news when one side spits out lies all day long, while the other side does lie, depending on who's broadcasting, but all of them lie simply due to omission. Either this guy is dumb, which I don't believe he is, or he doesn't believe half of what he says.

  37. Re: the simulation. Science has never created a machine of any kind that has interiority and without it there's nothing at all like us. A little modesty please!

  38. I often agree with Adams, but I think he’s way off on AOC, particularly in regard her intellect. She’s a bloomin’ moron to the point that I’ve felt bad for her during interviews where she’s displayed astounding levels of ignorance.

  39. The fact that our entire society is controlled by statements of what, 120 characters each ? because anything longer becomes too boring and bothersome is a testament that we, as a nation, are a bunch of toddlers who can not hold any type of concentration for more than 2 sentences before we lose interest. THIS is the average American voter today….a twitter addict?? A. TWITTER. ADDICT! sheeshe

  40. Sounds like Scott's still a boomer. He suggests watching Fox and CNN. I do watch some Fox for balance, but I do NOT watch any other mainstream media, because there is an overarching NeoLiberal bent to it. I spend much more time online and educating myself talking to VERY tuned in people on all sides of various issues. I enjoy debate and respectful dialogue. There is NONE of that on mainstream media. And I couldn't possibly disagree with Scott more on AOC. As a progressive, I feel she is riding on Bernie Sanders' coattails and raising her brand, as it was beginning to fail, and if the DNC cheats Bernie Sanders out of the nomination again, she will be just as happy to hop on over and cheer on Elizabeth Warren's campaign. I do NOT think she's in any way intelligent, some of the statements she has made have been jawdroppingly stupid and I don't credit her with any real effectiveness. She is here to create fear and outrage, to divide the left into camps, to play identity politics to the hilt and ensure that people are not supporting candidates like Tulsi Gabbard who ACTUALLY want to bring an end to regime change wars, take care of our environment, have fair and compassionate domestic policies, including her Single Payer Plus universal healthcare plan, and fight back against the corruption on BOTH sides of the aisle. She is a uniter, while AOC has been CREATED to divide. I'm with Dave on this. She's just a very good actress who delivers her expected lines well.

  41. Scott Adams claims there is no such thing as a "slippery slope". As culture evolves, certain changes are predicated on others. Also, accepting a premise on one issue now establishes a premise that can perpetuate; this is what is called the slippery slope.
    Scott Adams claims that history does not repeat it's self. Because the very nature of mankind has not changed, and because we fail to associate present conditions with historical lessons; mankind has repeated many of the same cycles over and over. Right now, global cultures is embracing socialism and fascism because it is in our nature to covet the rich guy's stuff, and to control our neighbor's actions. It is also in our nature to make ourselves feel better by attacking and brutalizing "the bad guys"; otherwise we would not have anitfa or Pol Pot.

  42. "You should ignore anyone who has a sense of complete certainty about a complicated issue " – Scott Adams

  43. I dont even have too. I quit watching MSM and now watch tim poole and ben shapiro 1st than I go to dan bongino than to cnn for some dumb reason but they're super funny cause of how biased they are just like when I tune into fox but atleast fox states its bias more often than CNN or cspan

  44. AOC is the idiot who is famous because she ticks the diversity box for the Democrats, and woke liberal millennials support her like mad because she is the woke role model they want to be. But to call her intelligent is just wrong.

    AOC is quite possibly the biggest moron I've ever seen. She got Amazon to leave New York because she thought the 3 billion dollar tax break that they could have got can be used for infrastructure. She's a moron, and she led to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs.

    Her Green New Deal has less to do with climate and more with "social justice" and other woke BS. How many votes did her New Green Deal get?

    Since she is at the throats of establishment democrats, she is quickly increasing the amount of enemies she has in her own party. It will only be a matter of time till the Woke Left eats her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment