Decoding Scott Adams' Bold Allegations

When you look at some of the policies, if you look at many of the COVID policies, it caused harm to the people, to society, to education. It's, destroying the education system where we're taking out standards. Well, it, you know, discriminates against black people or Hispanics and so on. So we're not going to have standards anymore. Okay. too many Asians are getting into Harvard, So we're going to make it much harder for an Asian student who deserves to get in. Right. So that's self-harm. Hello and welcome to Awake at the Wheel. So in today's episode, we're going to continue our conversation about Scott Adams. I strongly recommend that you watch last week's episode just to get some context of what we're talking about and why we're discussing him. But in this episode, we're going to dive a little bit deeper into some of the things that he has said and our analysis of why and is it helpful and unhelpful and so on. So one of the things that we brought up at the end of last episode was the fact that he's made claims that Democratic individuals are people who subscribe to that political party, have mental illness and are demonic. And he can tell by looking at their eyes that they're demonic and the way they raise their eyebrows and so on and so forth. I made the point that, you know, as clinicians, we have training in understanding body language, and there's certain cues that we can look for that tell us things, but rarely, if ever, it's never that broad and that specific in terms of what we can actually tell from it. It's more about having an understanding of what things could mean. But anyways, my point is that that's a silly thing for him to say. But Oren, I digress. You can fill in some blanks here. Okay. So yeah, please do watch the previous episode, because in that I explain my stance on Scott Adams, the good, the bad, and the ugly. So I don't repeat all of that. So nobody if anyone's watching only this, please understand there's a lot of context and a lot of nuance in the previous episode. So don't please call me a Scott Adams hater or a sycophant. I am neither. So one of the things that you mentioned about like no body language and so on. One thing that's so infuriating is if you watch the FBI body language experts and so on, what they will do is they will take a clip of somebody that they already know, whether they've lied or not, and then they'll show all these cues and they'll say they did this, they did that. And so on. And that's proof that they lied. The better thing would be to, you know, take somebody without knowing whether they're lying or not and see whether you can make those same declarations. Sometimes you can. Many times you can't. There's a lot of false positives. If someone's fidgeting, does that mean that they are trying to come up with a lie or does it mean that they're uncomfortable because they're being accused of lying, even though they were you know, they're an honest person and someone so. Right. So many false positives. So, number one, when Scott Adams says that. Yes, okay, he's pointing out people and situations where, in fact they're lying, we know that they're actually lying. Okay. And yet they say they're smiling. And this is right. Raised eyebrows. It's not the dushane smiles, not the legitimate smile. It's a fake smile. And that's something that's a pretty clear marker. And not every case, but in many cases that someone's being either disingenuous or outright deceptive or lying. So and the examples that he gives that he'll sometimes show the video, right? I would say, yeah, these people are lying based on what we know about them. That's number one. Number two, he says. And he again, in the previous episode, I keep saying previous episode, but he speaks very hyperbolically. So sometimes every few times he says that he will say, I'm not talking about all Democrats. He says only the ones who are acting this way. So but once again, if you're not listening to every single thing he says, all you're hearing is he's calling Democrats mentally ill and demonic. Yeah. So and the problem with that is there's a huge element of confirmation bias, just like you said, If you know in those those we've seen them on like 2020 and Dateline and whatever, where they already know what the person did, they're you know, they commit the crime and then they go back and say, see, look at these things that they did. No, that's that's a confirmation bias. And I think the same can be true of these comments that Scott Adams is making about Democrats, because the fact is, I am sure that there are plenty of such examples with Republicans or whatever, whoever else doing similar things. But if we're looking for that confirmation bias, it's pretty easy to find. Right? And I've got to admit, the people he points out, Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and then he talks about the media people. Joy Reid and Rachel MADDOW are some of the voices of other people as well. I do not like them or what they say. And I do know that they've lied or they've just presented misinformation blatantly. So, you know, that's my confirmation bias. Like, I'm glad he's pointing them out. Okay. But I would rather that he does then point out people on other sides as well when he's doing this. And the thing about, you know, when he talked about like the demonic eyes and so on, what he said was that people were claiming it was the judge in Brazil, the one who was responsible for trying to sense I, I don't I can't I don't know the exact details, but I read about it last week where they were trying to shut down because they wanted to cancel the accounts or shut down the accounts of people that they were claiming were providing misinformation, which is totalitarian. It's, you know, so they're saying Brazil is sliding into tyranny. And there was a judge who was in charge or who was making this demand. And if you look at the picture, anyone's just just I forget his name, but just Google Brazilian judge, ex platform, okay. Or musk. And you will see he does look evil, at least in this picture. And I'm sure if someone took screenshots of me, there's times where I know I look goofy. Okay. And I'm sure you can find some evil things as well. But in this one picture, he does look evil. And so people are saying, See, that's demonic and so on. So it's got to him says there's no no, it's not demonic what you call demonic. It's just mental illness, which is so insulting, of course, to the many people who do have mental illness. Okay. So again, and as we talked about in previous podcast, he is not very tactful, diplomatic, careful or as sympathetic, empathetic with his words, and he'll just claim it's just hyperbole. Yeah, well, hyperbole has a consequence. You're insulting people, you're turning people off and you can be, you know, hurting people. Then words, not violence. They're definitely not violence, but you can be a real jerk in doing so. And why do it so unnecessarily? Yeah. So as far as the claim of that's not demonic, that's just mental illness like that for obvious reasons, because of what we do for a living. I take such issue and I'm so insulted by him saying that because you can't tell by looking at somebody if they have a mental health disorder. That's just not a thing. Yes, you might. There might be certain behaviors and certain nuances like, for example, somebody with anxiety may be more prone to fidgeting or, you know, that's just a very basic example. So, okay, fine. But to make such a blanket statement in such a blatant blanket statement, again, when he has such a high degree of influence, that is irresponsible. It's irresponsible. It's again, it's hurtful, it's divisive. And by the way, certain types of mental illness, if someone is, of course, having a psychotic episode, of course. Yeah. But then he's conflating all of this. And and that's the problem and that's creating stigma. Well, you said. You and I as clinicians know that there's those things, But again, the general public doesn't. And they're going to make this very broad generalization that about mentally ill people. Exactly. And that's what he's doing, is speaking to his audience. And, you know, again, it's confirmation bias. They're hearing what they want to hear. actually, I think half of his audience hates him. They're just they're trying to if I see watching him, you know, they're just making all these comments just because they don't like what he's saying. But the other half of really or 90% or whatever, who really appreciate him as so much of what he says does make sense. So much of it is important. Okay. So when you're on board with that, it's so easy. Unfortunately, it's so insidious where you're hearing these hateful, stigmatizing statements. Yeah. So another thing that he is known for saying is that the Democrats are a party of white liberals and white liberal women are destroying America. That's a summary of it, but that's the general gist of it. So we've spoken before about white liberal women and certain commonalities amongst those groups. And is that a correlation? Is causation type of phenomenon there maybe where we're making inferences that aren't true. But the fact remains is that, okay, fine, I can agree to some extent with the fact that there is a certain type of person that subscribes to this party, but are they destroying America again, hyperbole. What are your thoughts on that? Okay. So you're going to have to watch my confirmation bias because not just the people I'm thinking of happened to be white liberal women. Yeah, but. There's also black liberal women and there's a lot of white liberal men as well who are doing this. And of course, you know, there are a lot of people on the right, a lot of conservatives, a lot of Republicans who are who have also had their chance to destroy the country, which they have done. They've caused a lot of harm in different ways. So, again, it's very divisive, even though I agree with some of the statements and the people he points out like he can he can come up with many, many, many examples. So if I can come up with ten different examples of people who happen to be white and liberal and women, okay, great. It confirms my hypothesis. But then what about again the people who are of a different skin color of a different sex and even have a different political persuasion? Right. That's it. Can we speak that way? It's it's basically absolving the other people of all the harm that they've caused. So, you know, I'm glad that I keep things over and over. I'm glad that he's pointing out the problems that are happening. And he said this over and over and over. And it happens to be a white liberal woman. I think Rudy Weingartner in the States, she's the secretary. I don't get her title wrong, but she's in charge of either. She's the head of the union teachers union, or she's I think I think she's head of the teachers union. Randi, I think is Randi Weingarten, head of the teachers union in the States. And the fact is, again, this is one of the things where, once again, he's pointing out something that needs to be addressed. And he will constantly point out in other podcasts that decisions being made at the educational level are harming the children. And I think it's indisputable. Some of the stuff that he points out and it happens to be a person who's a woman who's liberal and who's white, you know, who's doing this. And again, we can find in court cases, in hospital decisions in the universities and so on. We can find so many examples. So the problem has to be exposed. It has to be addressed. And if he's doing it this way to kind of like to bring attention to it, great. But there's a cost to it. There are other ways he could have brought attention to it that would not again, have these, let's say, unintended consequences. Yeah, and I'm having a hard time formulating my thought fully here. But what I largely take issue with in things that he's saying and other such people are saying is everything is so heavily politicized. I I've always before even the way things are these days have stood by don't talk about religion in politics when you're in polite company because it always just devolves into chaos. And I do believe that. And I think we are seeing that where this divisiveness that you were illustrating earlier, it's so, so blatant and everything is right versus left and everything is is something political in nature. Meanwhile, there's so much terrible shit going on in the world that is not politically motivated or has anything to do with politics, but it doesn't get the same attention or the attention that it deserves because I don't know. It doesn't get views or likes or as much attention. For what reason? I don't know. But it that drives me absolutely insane that there's so much focus and attention on what he and people like him are saying because it is so divisive and so politically driven. Yeah, and I'm torn on that because, again, I think these are things that need to be addressed is that's I'm glad that he's highlighting them. And his framing sometimes is interesting. And there's a couple of frames I think that we're going to talk about that I think are really good. But once again, they just need to be tweaked, So that it doesn't offend so many people and then be the not only focus on this, as you say, let's then broaden it to these other issues, you know, that we can do with less politicization, you know, and just focus on what is the actual problem. Now, thing is, he's not causing the problem. Right? It's been it was politicized well before him. Sure. Right. So I do want to put that on him. But he is fueling it. And, you know, quite frankly, probably when I, you know, report certain things on X, you know, or when I say things, I'm probably fueling it as well. But I'm trying to do I try to do in a way that's not, again, causing all this division. Right. I'm just I'm trying to point out and he is quite influential, according what he's saying, that he's had a number of big names, you know, who consult with them and so on. So, you know, again, I do like some of the insights he has, and I do like that he's able to frame things in ways that I think are helpful. And I wish that and maybe behind the scenes, you know, he maybe is doing that. Maybe the podcast is just a way to get attention to himself. And behind the scenes he's actually doing in a more productive way. I hope that's about right. But again, but what people are seeing, he's just fueling the problem further. Yeah, and I think to just to add to the the offensive nature of what he's saying, I think that in and of itself is problematic because that term has been so weaponized these days as well. It's like, well, if you're offended, you must be a delicate little flower who can't handle anything. But there is actual, you know, true nuance between what is acceptable, appropriate and actually offensive. Right. So I think that the lines have been very blurred around that, too. And if somebody like me who is quite nuanced and thinks critically and is very open minded, is finding these things offensive, I'm not saying that I'm the offensiveness police by any means, but I think there's something to be said about there are things that are objectively distasteful and offensive that he's saying that others are saying. But I almost feel like I'm not allowed to voice that because I'm going to be labeled as being a delicate little flower. Right? Yeah. It's tricky because as anyone who knows me knows, I don't get offended easily, you know, even if it's something directly against me or something at some part of me, you know, element of me that I identify with or that's associated with me. Right. I don't. So I can hear a lot of this stuff. And again, even though a lot of what he says I agree with, that's why maybe I'm not offended at all. But even the stuff that could offend me, I've got thick skin, very thick skin. But once again and I want people to have thicker skin. But, you know, you and I have talked about so many different topics of someone, as you say, like yourself who does find it actually offensive, then I'm inclined to say it's probably crossing the line and now it's going beyond it's not it's not being as effective as it could be. And you have to think, what is the purpose of that? Being provocative for a good reason. Okay, maybe it is, but if you can get the same good effects without the provocative ness, a provocation, maybe that's a better way of doing it. Yeah, but, you know, look, his biggest his biggest model is Trump. I know he calls Trump the energy monster, you know. And so, again, I understand the strategy behind getting eyeballs, getting ears, getting that attention. I do get that. But again, if you get all the attention but people aren't actually hearing the nuance. All they're doing is getting outraged. And he's saying, well, just give him 5 minutes with me and I'll be able to persuade them and everything. Well, that's not actually happening. And he has enough evidence because he's seen the people on on his streams. And all he says is when people do call him out and again, many of the people who call him out, they call him out with bad information. They're saying they're attributing to him things that he didn't actually say because there are efforts to discredit him. There was a whole fortune hoax that's that completely reversed his position on vaccines and so on. And I've heard and what I heard what he said, and I think he actually took a pretty good approach to certain topics. So I know so many people attack him with you know, with with misinformation. They are they were misinformed or ill informed. Right. I get that. But all he does is just dismiss them and go, well, you know, like, you know, you're an NBC non-player character, right? So and so to the two trolls to true NBC's Yeah get rid of them they're not contributing to society we don't need them But maybe the people who are upset with you aren't that and if you you know, if you didn't rile them up in the first place, maybe they would have heard you better. And the thing is, anyone who knows me and my posts, I can guarantee you that some people will say what a hypocrite, because some of the stuff that he said he could have said better as well, you know, and he didn't have to be, you know, and I get that and I try to draw that. You know, I try to walk that line where, again, I don't I'm not trying to be offensive. I might be blunt, I might be direct. And and you know, having gone through so many, many, many, let's say, unhealthy exchanges with people. Right. I sometimes have to be a bit more aggressive to, you know, to get a point across, because when I've tried to go soft, I've seen what happens. So I get that so anyone can call me a hypocrite. But I think I try my best to keep that level of offensiveness down here because I'm not trying to offend. He's outright trying to offend. He knows he's trying to offend. I'm not so I'm not trying to make this, you know, look. But you know what? You made a light bulb go off for me a little bit here because my bias came out or you're talking about your post, but I know you and I know you personally. I know your intentions and I know that you're a good person at heart. So I can frame your posts in that light where Scott Adams is just some person on the internet that I don't know. So I don't have that same level of empathy or understanding when I'm looking at his content. So I'll throw that in there as as just something to reframe how I'm feeling about the offensive nature of things. Right? And it's hard to give benefit of the doubt when you don't know the person and all your defense of things, right? Whereas I think I've tried for, you know, before when I was on, you know, before I got canceled and everything I had given over, I think a thousand TV and radio interviews and, you know, and I've lectured, you know, for over 20 years, you know, over 200 classes. So so many people have heard my messaging. You know, they see my intention and they should know that I'm a good person with good intentions. So I thought I built up enough goodwill that, again, when people come at me, I'm able to go a bit hard against them. Because evidence to support the contrary. Right? Exactly. So and whereas Scott Adams I don't get I've heard everything he said for the last three or four years every day on podcasts. So I think again, I can give him more benefit. I can get through all the, you know, the ridiculousness and see the point he's trying to make. I said five or six years now at least, you know, so, my goodness, I'm already doing it for my life. But right. So I'm able to do that. And the people listen to all the time, they're able to do that as well. But once again, most of the other people, they're not. And it's just it's just further divisiveness. Yeah. So you mentioned some of the positive things in his work, one of which being the framing. So give me some examples of that. Okay. So my favorite framing know, I've talked about this in several podcasts and again, it's political, but if that's what I do think it's appropriate, right? Where he talks about that, he says Democrats are a party of goals. Republicans are a party of systems. And what he means by and I said this again in previous podcast, what he means by that is Democrats will have a goal of, let's say, you know, fix the climate, eradicate poverty. You know, you know, equity for. All right, great goal. But the other thing he said is that Democrats also don't understand the human motivation and the human mind. So the way they try to go about doing it is so poor because they don't understand the they don't understand incent, like how to incentivize people. So a system has to be you know, it has to be feasible. It has to be based on reality. It has to be have realistic goals. And you have to know how to motivate the people or incentivize people to do the things that you want them to do. And he said that the Democrats and I think, quite frankly, in the last number of years, you know, so much so many of the problem that we have seen has been a problem of, again, not understanding how people operate. So I think that's one of the better framings. And the thing is, though, he is way too much credit to the Republicans because I don't know if they've really done a great job at the systems. But but when I hear them talk, I do hear not all of them, because there's a lot of Republicans who sound like, you know, well, I can't think of any nice words of you that goes, okay, your words, not mine. Let's go with incompetent. Many Republicans are incompetent or corrupt or something else like that. So I don't hear them talking about the system. But I have heard a number of Republicans or, you know, or conservatives who do talk about the systems. How do we implement how do we make this actually work in a sustainable, effective fashion? So that's, I think, one of the best framings. I agree. And the thing is, politics aside, that is true of so many things like thinking as an entrepreneur, that that is the framework of a business. And that being said, the two go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other, right? So looking at my business, I have certain goals and those can only be executed through very specific systems and procedures and so on and so forth. So I'll say that I agree with his framing of that. But I also will add that I don't think that the two can exist without the other one for sure. Without the other. Yeah. Right. And the other frame is where he calls. So he says that basically Wokeism or DEI, and once again, this framing I don't like because it stigmatizes. So I'll give you the other framing that I, I think is a bit better. So you say Wokeism or DEI are a mental illness basically, which once again, let's not stigmatize people mental illness. Okay. But the other framing that he uses is now he's call him self-harm. Okay. And I do like that. And that's not to, of course, to to make anyone who unfortunately engages in self-harming behaviors. It's not to make light of their situation, but the fact is self-harm is a term beyond you know, let's say, the self-harm that certain people with certain personality or conditions, you know, do to themselves. It's just he talks about that. When you look at some of the policies, if you look at many of the COVID policies, it caused harm to the people, to society, to education. It's, you know, destroying the education system where, you know, you and I have talked about this, where we're taking out standards. Well, it, you know, discriminates against black people or Hispanics and so on. So we're not going to have standards anymore. Okay. We're going to, you know, eight too many Asians are getting into Harvard, So we're going to make it much harder for an Asian student who deserves to get in. Right. So that's self-harm. The border gate, border policies, the immigration policies is you and I both I think I've said before, immigration countries thrive with immigration done. Right, Right. But the way it's being done in the States and in Canada, if you look at what's happened in the last number of years, right, housing crises and so on, because we've had too many people who are just, you know, are just overwhelming the system. So as we always say, good intentions executed poorly lead to disastrous outcomes. And that's what's happening. So that's an example where these policies are causing harm to everybody, including the people are supposed to help. So for, as you say, you know, as a lot of people say, now we're hearing it all the time, a boat crashes into the bridge, you know, in the states. And the first thing that so many people are saying, okay, was, well, was it a DEI hire? I mean, now people are framing it this way. Okay. And I've I've heard many black people say and people of color saying, I don't want people to question, you know, when I was hired, whether I was a DEI hire that's even harming the people that is supposed to help. Right. So that I do like the phrasing of, you know, self-harm, because I really do think that it's. And spoiler alert, we're going to do a whole episode about this whole concept of DEI and self-harm and the harm that it is doing. But specific to Scott Adams phrasing of this, I, I sense that it was done for hyperbole, for shock value. I take issue with the terminology only because self-harm in a clinical context is such a sensitive, difficult thing. So to I think minimize it by applying it in this context is again maybe a bit irresponsible. But I will agree that many of the DUI principles are harmful. Right. So yeah. So again, better ways that he can, you know, provide this and I'll just say it one more time. He's just and he said this outright, especially with the comment that he made in the that we talked about the previous episode. He just wanted to bring attention to the topic. And he says, once I've got your attention now, I can work with you and I can tell you what I really meant. I can give you all the nuance and everything, and I'm going to persuade you and you're going to be on board and we're going to fix this problem. Okay, That's the stated intention. But him aside, I won't pick on him because I don't know. But I think that the challenge with that way of looking at it is that many people do go into the media world, social media world, maybe with that intention, but then the popularity goes to their head or they got popular for doing things. The wrong way and they just stick to that. So that that's my fear with with that tactic there is where is the guarantee that he's going to do the ethical thing? I don't know. Well, yeah, that's it's actually I'm not going to single anybody out. Okay. But I've seen other people who started off small. I like some of the stuff they were saying. And you're absolutely right. Once they started getting a platform, they started becoming almost a caricature of what they were doing. It was no longer about the, you know, the original goals. Now it's becoming self enhancement, how they're trying to push themselves, you know, they have an audience and they don't want to lose that audience. I know we're going a little bit off topic, but they're catering now to the people who made them popular, who made them rich and so now how how honest can you be? How beneficial can you be? How can you be helping so many different people when only a certain portion of them are the ones paying your bills, so to speak? So yeah, and I feel like we could go on about that for a while because I think it happens all too often. But let's, let's stick with Scott Adams. So are there any other framings that come to mind as as far as whether positive or negative things that he's done? Okay. Well, let's say a claim that he's made. Okay, But I've got a claim in a frame. Okay. So the frame was that he was saying basically was saying that the only thing that differentiates it's Republicans and Democrats. So the only thing the only philosophical difference he said was abortion. Okay. Interestingly, I don't it's a whole other topic. But and then he talks about that. He said everything else. It's not about philosophy, it's about education, It's about knowledge, whatever. So and the way he framed it just I think it's interesting cause I talked about this in previous podcast, like if you only listen to what he says and you don't really think critically about it, it's really compelling and he gives a good argument about that. So it's interesting if he says that's the only and he's not even being hyperbolic here, I think he's saying literally the only difference between Republicans and Democrats today, philosophically speaking, is abortion, because abortion is a I would say a philosophical question. I mean, you know, when does life begin? You know, there's morals as well. It's a moral and philosophical question. But when you talk about borders, we talked about education, We talked about the like. He says that's not a philosophical thing. It's more about if you had the right education, if you had the right intention, etc., etc.. But that's his framing. And again, I say, okay, well, I can see it that way. But I could also say that there's a philosophical underpinning to what these people are saying. So again, so. Yeah, with all of those topics there, there is certainly. But he just outright plainly says, no, it's not. It's just education. Because if you think the way that I do, if you have my intelligence, you have my insight, if you have my knowledge of the human condition, then you would realize that this is the right choice. It's not a philosophy. Okay, So once again, you talk about the it's confirmation bias. If you already buy into it, you go, Yes. All right. That makes so much sense. Right? So but a critical thinker, step back and go. There's alternative explanations. So that's one where it's a reframe and a claim. And, you know, that was one thing. And then the other one. But maybe I'll just leave it at that because of time. But okay, So again, just one more time, I'll just wrap it up with the way that he has framed and reframed certain things, even says this A frame or reframe doesn't even have to be real, as long as it's adaptive, as long as you can use it to be productive. So I'm saying there's a lot of bad about Scott Adams, but a lot of stuff, he says. And I use it in my sessions as well, whether it's not his exact reframing, but it's something that I will use it. I'll just give one that's going to really like it. Okay. Well, he used to say that when people would criticize him, he used to get very upset when he first started doing Dilbert, because, you know, there are a lot of problems that people would, you know, say, this is terrible or whatever. You would get angry. Then he reframed it. And it's something I do with my patients, the students he reframed it as every time he heard criticism, he said, he says in his mind cha-ching, okay? And he says, because if I actually listen to this criticism, then I'm going to have a better product. And a better product will make me more money. So, cha-ching, and it was it's a thought blocker, it stops you from spiraling and getting angry or whatever. Like, I can benefit from that. So that's just one example of a reframe that I find to be very helpful. So despite all the bad stuff that we said about Scott Adams, I do want to say that, you know, some of these things can truly be helpful and it doesn't you know, it's not real. If you act like it's real and it somehow comes, you know, is helpful to you, then all the power to you and, you know, anyway, I just want to end on a positive note. Yeah. And to that point, I would say I hope I have done a decent job of not completely crapping on this guy because like I said earlier, I don't know him. Perhaps he's a fabulous human being and maybe this is his way of trying to bring some good about in the world. Maybe you, Scott Adams listens to our whole two episode series about him. He'll have some comments or thoughts or or something. But I, you know, I would love at least to hear from our listeners in terms of what you think about these various topics that we've brought up our way off base or read on track. What do you think? Let us know in the comments. And once again, please don't watch this episode without having seen the first episode, because I give a lot of my thoughts on the good and the bad of Scott Adams. So and I hope that our way of giving a comprehensive and a balanced perspective on him. So we'll see what people say. So. Right. And on that note, until next time, keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheel.