Episode 231 Scott Adams: Dr. Ford, Unbiased News and the Democrat Brand
Date: 2018-09-23 | Duration: 50:08
Topics
Why aren’t there any good, current photos of Christine Blasey Ford? Ford is becoming the face of the Democrat party All 4 reported witnesses unable to confirm the accusations It’s been a great week for President Trump 25th amendment President Trump? Not according to Rosenstein Where can I get unbiased news? Our pattern recognition brains create bias naturally Some perceived patterns aren’t real
I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a "boss" somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I'm trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.
See all of my Periscope videos here…
https://www.pscp.tv/ScottAdamsSays/1nAKERDOwylGL
Find my WhenHub Interface app here…
https://interface.whenhub.com
## Transcript
## [Simultaneous Sip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=6s)
But I bum bum ba boom ba ba ba ba ba ba whoa! Hey everybody, get in here. Hey Joe, hey Sharon, come on in here. I'm a little bit late; I overslept. Sorry. Tyler, Morgan, come on in. I hope y'all have your coffee because it's a day for coffee with Scott Adams.
We're almost at a thousand viewers and that means it's time to hoist your mug, your vessel, your chesil, your cup, your glass, your container with the beverage of your choice. I like coffee. Join me for the simultaneous sip.
You should do an A/B test later. Try a sip without doing it simultaneously—it won't be as good. So, it's impossible not to talk about Dr. Christine Ford.
## [The Mystery of Christine Blasey Ford's Photos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=70s)
She has captivated the country with her allegations against Judge Kavanaugh, that is also captivating the country. Here are some questions I have. Number one: why is it so hard to find a good photo of Christine Ford on Google? What's up with that? There are only two photos you see, or three, I think. Two of them she has sunglasses on so you can't see her eyes, and one she does not, so much so that I'm not even sure the one without the sunglasses is even her. You can't really even tell it's the same person.
Why are we not seeing pictures of her? Just a question. If I were her, if I were her handlers, if I were her lawyers, here's what I would do. Since she's in the news and since these old pictures of her are the ones that are flying around, I would make sure that there's at least one good photo that just puts her in a good light. Like literally, just makes her look good, makes her look happy, smiley, in control—just makes her look as good as she can look. That seems like lawyering 101, doesn't it?
If there are no good pictures of her in the universe, but they're still being printed like crazy, you go out there and you get a good picture. Right? Peter Duke—I know Peter Duke the photographer is listening to me right now and agreeing with every word I just said.
This, again, is looking for the empty space. When you're looking at the picture, don't look at just the stuff that's on the canvas. Look at the empty part of this. Any good lawyer representing someone whose picture is everywhere would provide a better picture. So why are her lawyers not doing it? Are they bad lawyers? Possible, but I understand that they're high-level lawyers. Or number two: there's something about the picture that they don't think would help.
Should we ever see her live? I think it's going to be interesting because it'll be the first time we've actually really seen her. I would say I'm not sure we've seen her because the picture without her sunglasses is very old—it's like a high school picture—and the pictures of the more modern version of her are with sunglasses and you really can't get the measure of her. So there's that.
## [The Democrat Brand: The Party for Women](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=255s)
Remember I told you that the Democratic Party is starting to self-brand? This is not my opinion of them; they're starting to self-brand as the party of women, the party for women, which sort of leaves men a little bit out in the Democratic Party. But that's their choice. They can do whatever they want with their party. I'm not saying it's good or it's bad. It might actually be good; maybe it would be healthy to have a female-centric party that just goes with that theme. You never know, it could be good. I always like a healthy competition in all things.
Somebody just told me that Jeremy Corbyn referred to his party over in Great Britain as the party for women, and I thought that's interesting. It's a thing—somebody actually calling his party the party of women, the party for women. And again, that might be good. Maybe it's a good way to brand, maybe it's a way to win, maybe it's a healthy way to compete. Who knows?
But here's where this all gets interesting. Work with me here. At the same time that the Democratic Party is branding itself very hard as the party of women and for women—and I think you would agree with that characterization—at the same time they're doing that, who is the woman or women who are the face of the Democratic Party? Well, it's sort of distributed, right? There's Nancy Pelosi and there's still Hillary, but are they really the face of the Democratic Party? There's Elizabeth Warren. I can go down the list, but none of them have quite gelled as the one woman you think of when you think of the Democratic Party. You might think of Hillary, but she's a special case off in the fringe. Yeah, Maxine Waters, etc.
## [Christine Ford as the Face of the Democratic Party](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=380s)
At the very time that the Democratic Party is branding as the party of women, the biggest story in the news that's capturing all of our attention is Christine Ford. Who is the most notable, talked about, prominent, photographed, argued-about woman who is a perfect emblem of the Democratic Party the way they're trying to form their brand? It's Christine Ford.
Now, she did not volunteer to be the face of the Democrat Party. I'm pretty sure that was not her plan. But because there's a big vacuum there in terms of personality, her personality—just by being in the news, by being associated with that team—completely maps to that team perfectly. She was an activist, she donated, the news says she considered moving out of the country because Trump might appoint Kavanaugh. So she's as solidly Democrat as you can get. She's becoming sort of the face of the party through nobody's intention. It was nobody's idea, "Hey, let's make her the face of the party." It just sort of became that.
Oh yeah, you think of Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And when you name the men who were associated with the Democrats, it's sort of sad, isn't it? You've got Joe Biden who is, unfortunately, hard to take completely seriously. You've got Keith Ellison—that's not a male name you want associated with your party if you're a Democrat. Whenever there's a man involved on the Democrat side—Cory Booker, "Spartacus"—they're just not presenting themselves well and they're not getting the same kind of attention.
The Democrats are self-branding as the party of and for women. The biggest story is about Christine Ford; she's identified with it. There's a vacuum of personality to put on the Democrat brand, and these two stories are now conflating like crazy. Should she end up giving her testimony in public, people are going to look at that and somewhat subconsciously they're going to say: there's the head of the Democratic Party. Not the head in terms of being in charge, but the figure you think of, the brand, the vibe you get, the feelings that you associate with the Democrats. She's the one who's carrying the banner right now.
For good or bad, I would say a lot of women would say that's great because she is exactly the kind of person we want out there. She's brave, she's going up against power, she was victimized by a white man. I think a lot of Democrats would say, "Bring it on," and she's exactly what we're talking about; we want her to have a prominent voice.
But what's that going to do to your elections in the future? Is it the sort of thing that's going to help you?
## [Witness Credibility and Testimony](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=625s)
When Christine Ford testifies, do you think she's going to come off well? We know now that apparently all of the named potential witnesses to the party in question, all of them have said they don't remember it. In other words, they can't confirm that the event even happened. None of them.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen because they were drunk; it was a long time ago, they probably had parties every weekend. Who would remember any one of them? But there's also some discrepancy we're seeing in that the reporter's notes from the Washington Post apparently said that there was one woman involved, not three men, not four men. At one point she had said there were three boys and a girl, because they were all under 18, and now the woman who was a girl then who was named doesn't remember it.
In terms of credibility—now remember, credibility is not whether it's true or false; credibility is just how we're receiving it. We don't know what happened, we'll never know. But how we're receiving it is with a very low level of credibility lately. When the initial accusation comes out and you don't know anything except that an accusation has happened, that's the moment when you probably put the highest level of credibility on it in terms of this specific story arc. But every time something comes out, it's a little less credible. Like, yes, they were drinking. He has no history that would suggest he's this kind of person. Great character references, lots of women who knew him said this isn't him. The evidence that's coming out is all somewhat too pro-Kavanaugh at this point, and it's been somewhat consistent. I'm not sure I would have expected that, actually. I think I would have expected maybe it would go the other way.
## [The Science of False Memories](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=812s)
One of the most beneficial things to come out of this—and I don't want to overlook the fact that what we have here are one or two victims in this story. Christine Ford is certainly a victim of something. I don't know if it's the event she described, a different event, or just something in her life, but there's clearly some kind of issue, some problem, and I think calling her a victim is fair. We'll take her word for it on that. But Kavanaugh, should he be innocent completely, is clearly a victim.
There's one or two victims here, not counting the country. But whenever there's something terrible going on, sometimes there's some slight positive that comes out of it. You always ignore the slight positive that comes out of a tragedy because the tragedy is the story, not the slight positive. But there's a slight positive, let's talk about it.
The slight positive is at no time has the population of the United States been so well-informed on the topic of false memories. That's a really big deal. Remember I told you back in 2015 that President Trump would change not just politics; he would change the way we saw reality. I'm going to claim complete success on that prediction. You see that happening again.
A month ago, if I said to a hundred Americans, "Tell me what you know about the topic of false memory," they would have said, "I don't know too much about it." But now they know a lot more about it. And that's good. That's really good. Because the more humility you have about the quality of your own memory, the more accurate you're going to be about understanding your reality. The more you understand that memories are recreations—they're not actual memories like a photograph—once you understand your memories are recreations, it takes you to another level of understanding your reality. And I think the public has just gone for that.
There's one thing I don't think happened. The thing I would think is the least likely explanation is that Christine Ford just made it up, just lied intentionally. I think that's the least likely explanation. Way on top of that is that something happened. Way higher probability something happened—might have been somebody different, it might have been a different time—but the probability of something happening is pretty high.
## [Rosenstein and the 25th Amendment](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=998s)
The Democrats are having a terrible brand problem. On top of that, there's that New York Times story about Rod Rosenstein talking about the 25th Amendment and talking about wearing a wire. People there say that he was joking. I tend to be biased in favor of whoever says it was a joke because if anybody says something's a joke and they took it that way, it probably was a joke.
I suspect that Rosenstein was being sarcastic but also engaged in the conversation. It's probably true, and you can tell from Rosenstein's specific way he denied what happened—he essentially confirmed that he was part of that conversation. So he was part of the conversation talking about the 25th Amendment and he was part of a conversation talking about wearing a wire, although it might have been sarcastic.
This is such a good week for the President. It's like an insanely good week for the President for all weird reasons. One of them is that Rosenstein, as I said yesterday, decided he needed to write a public letter saying that he's never seen anything to suggest that the President should be removed from office for the 25th Amendment. That was just at the time that the opposition was gearing up to make that the new line of attack because the Russia thing was falling apart.
The Russia thing fell apart. The racist thing isn't panning out as well as anybody hoped because the country is just running pretty well and the Supreme Court is not arguing about anything being racist at the moment, so it hasn't quite gotten the bite it needed to get. They switched from Russia, switched from racism, and they thought, "Well, we've got this 'he's crazy' thing going on." And then the one person you should have been able to depend on, because he's no fan of the President, we assume—Rod Rosenstein—essentially gave him a clean bill of health in terms of his observations, which we would assume should be pretty good.
## [First-Hand Account of President Trump’s Mental Health](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=1123s)
As you know, I got to spend some time with the President last month. I spent enough time talking to him, just chatting about a variety of topics, that if he were crazy, I think I would have noticed. I'm no mental health expert, but crazy people sort of signal it pretty well, don't they? I feel like I would have picked up a little bit if there was even a whiff of it, like I would have just a little bit of question in my mind.
But just nothing. It was a completely normal conversation with somebody who was operating at a very high level. Somebody whose mental process was very keenly focused on things that mattered, and he was very, very good at ignoring things that didn't matter. He was more sane than anybody I've talked to in a long time.
The President's got now a reason to fire Rosenstein if he wants to, because the New York Times story gives him all kinds of cover to do that, whatever he wants to. It supports his story that there were deep state forces working against him in ways that nobody would approve of. That works for him. The whole New York Times thing is just totally positive.
## [Conflating Kavanaugh with Trump’s Past Accusations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=1246s)
Here's the other thing. President Trump was accused by various women, primarily during the election itself and then because of the Access Hollywood tapes. He was accused of bad behavior with a variety of women. No specific evidence that anybody would call credible came out of that except people talking during a highly partisan situation. Given the partisanship of the election, eyewitness accounts from years ago just don't have the same weight they would have if it were not an election.
One of the weird benefits that the President gets out of this is that because Kavanaugh's accuser has only, I think, 25 percent believability or support—25 percent of the public believes the accuser—the summary of that is that the vast amount of Americans believe this is an invented or fake accusation that has nothing to do with the President. But it's this big public example of how, in people's opinions, we don't know the facts, but in 75 percent of the public opinion, there's an overblown or false accusation from a woman from years ago about a powerful man today.
What's that look like? If you don't believe the Kavanaugh accusation—and I'm not saying it's true or false, I have no idea—if you don't believe that one, that thought bleeds over and starts to conflate with what you're thinking about the President. Suddenly the accusations against President Trump are all being diminished in our minds because of a completely different story. It's just that we can't help making an automatic analogy.
Whatever happens with Kavanaugh is going to bleed over to what you believe about the President's accusers. You can't help it. That's just how brains work. Those two stories will just be too similar. An old accusation from years ago, only evidence is a woman, it's somebody who's at the highest level of the government today—it's the President, it's Kavanaugh. They're all white guys of a certain height and size, white women from years ago. In your mind, there's too much similarity; you're going to generalize from one to the other. It's just going to happen. So that helps Trump too. We'll never know what the deal was with Kavanaugh and Ford, but the fact that people don't believe it by a three-to-one margin is good for the President.
## [Foreign Policy Victories](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=1429s)
During this entire time, the only other news stories have been good economic news. Good news on economics. Iran has been well-behaved to the point where the New York Times reported that Trump's gambit of canceling the Iran deal looks like it's working. The New York Times reported that! One of the biggest topics of disagreement, they reported, "Well, yeah, it's kind of working."
North Korea. North Korea stopped their propaganda in their own country talking about the need to keep nukes, and they changed their own propaganda to "Let's become the cradle of peace." Their own words translated. What does it mean that North Korea has changed their internal propaganda to make them look like they're winning by getting rid of their nukes? Foreshadowing.
What happened in Syria? When it looked like Russia and Iran were going to wipe out this pocket of rebels that the United States wants to protect—I don't know the details—well, the United States got its way. They decided not to attack and it turns out President Trump was the big player there. Indeed, they backed down.
I don't know what you're seeing, but I'm seeing victory after victory after victory.
## [China Trade Negotiations and Leadership](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=1551s)
The big wildcards out there are you've got China. We're still not seeing much progress in terms of Chinese negotiations, but who has time on their side? We do. The United States has time on its side. If you say to yourself, "Hey, it's been a week and we don't have a deal with China," what happens if it's two weeks? I'll tell you what happens. The longer it goes, the more leverage we have, because it's harder for China to wait than it is for us just because of the differences in the economies.
The longer it goes, it's definitely going to squeeze some prices. Walmart's going to feel the pinch. There are going to be some specific industries that feel the pinch, and I'm not happy about that. I don't want to overlook the fact that there will be American businesses and people who are going to really feel the pinch.
But that's what leadership is. Leadership is: "I know we don't like this, but this group is going to have to take a pinch." Because if they do and we can get to the other end of this—thank you patriots for taking the economic hit on this—but you understand I'm doing this all in public. We're looking for the big deal that can help everybody in the long run. But sorry about this, we expect you to take a hit for the public. That's what leadership is. Leadership is saying clearly: "This group is going to have to take some sacrifice, and we're doing it because the greater good looks like this." Somebody has to make these decisions. I just made it. Best leadership.
Can China, persuasion-wise, give him? China can do whatever he wants because the government is very capable and very credible within their own country. So they do have operating power to find a way to make it work. I guess. I'm not there, so I don't know the details.
## [The Search for Unbiased News](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=1677s)
I've been having some back-and-forth with Hawk Newsome. You know him as a leader of Black Lives Matter Greater New York. I shared with him my document in which I showed the "two movies" about President Trump: the one that says Charlottesville happened the way CNN and MSNBC reported it, and the other one that says that's just a hoax. When he said, for example, there were "good people on both sides," the reality is he meant both sides of the statue question. He wasn't saying that the white supremacists were good people, but that's how it was reported inaccurately.
I shared that list of all the hoaxes that are the headlines with Hawk, and I was quite happy to see that he tweeted a question. He tweeted: "Where can I watch unbiased news?"
That, my friends, might be the most important question anybody ever asked. It seems like no big deal, right? Let me say how important this is. The leader of Black Lives Matter Greater New York, one of the leading voices for that movement, said in public, "Where can I get unbiased news?" Because he understands now—and I think I was at least part of that journey—to show him that there are two movies playing and they're not the same. If you're watching only one of these movies, you don't know what's going on. It doesn't matter which one. If you're only watching one, you don't know what's going on.
Somebody suggested that I was a source of unbiased news, and I would say I'm the only person I know who's attempting to be unbiased. When I have a bias, I'll call it out. There are issues where even I have a bias and it's either going to be obvious to you or I'll call it out if I need to. But I'm at least trying. It is my intention to be unbiased, and I have the advantage that I don't have a financial advantage to be biased. In fact, you can tell—I mean, I just lose money by doing this so far.
He was looking for other suggestions, of course. The only one I could think of—and think about this—I can only think of one unbiased other person. When I say unbiased, I don't mean he's completely unbiased. I mean he's intending to be unbiased; someone who's actually putting effort into being unbiased. And I said Glenn Greenwald. I think he writes from The Intercept now. I follow him on Twitter.
Let me give you my bias about Glenn Greenwald. I think he's a dick. Now, he and I have had a little bit of an exchange on Twitter, so my personal opinion of him is he is a dick. But my professional opinion is that he's just about the only person who is even attempting to do something that looks unbiased.
Oh, Alan Dershowitz? That's a good one, but Dershowitz tends to limit his comments to the law, so I don't think of him as being that unbiased. There are other people who get close to that. Some of the names I saw go by were Greg Gutfeld. I agree with that one. Greg is probably the most unbiased observer on Fox News, but if you're on Fox News, you're going to take a certain hit at least in terms of people's opinions.
Sharyl Attkisson. Everything that Sharyl Attkisson writes looks unbiased to me, but pretty much what she writes tends to always favor a certain position, doesn't it? Whatever she writes, it does seem like it's objective, but I don't see her ever raise stories that seem to lean the other direction.
Chris Wallace is good. That's a good example. Your trouble is that if you're on either CNN or you're on Fox News, it's tough to get all the way to completely unbiased because it'd be hard to keep your job. Joe Rogan is a good example, although I don't think of him as being about the news. Somebody's saying Byron York? Byron York blocks me on Twitter, so I don't have any opinion on Byron York because I can't read his writing. Ann Coulter? Oh, Dave Rubin. Thank you, that's actually a good suggestion, but Dave Rubin is not in the job of reporting the news or talking about the headlines so much. He's more in the job of talking to people who talk about it, but yes, he would be a great example.
Geraldo Rivera, that's a good example. Geraldo is a good example of someone who's clearly on both sides of the issues and talks about the news. The closest thing to unbiased on CNN is Chris Cuomo, in my opinion. John Stossel, some people are saying, maybe.
## [Media Business Models and Disagreement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=2103s)
The trouble is, if you work for one of the big networks, there's a limit to how unbiased you can ever really be. Let's say a minimum requirement for me to call you unbiased is that I have to know about times that you've disagreed with what people would say would be your own side. If you can have examples of that—and Greg Gutfeld does have examples where he has clear examples of times that he's gone against the grain—he qualifies. Geraldo qualifies because he has specific examples where he's gone against the grain.
I don't know about Brit Hume. I'm not discounting that one as a possibility, but I don't know of any examples where he's gone against the grain. Chris Wallace sounds completely reasonable when I listen to him, but I also don't know any examples where he went against the grain. There probably are.
Look how unusual it is that anybody even attempts to be unbiased. You don't really even see the attempt coming out of too many people. That's new with the business models. If your business model is making money for a network or a certain publication, you kind of have to stay in that lane or it's not going to work out too well. I have the same influence because there I feel pressure—I wouldn't call it pressure, I'd say I feel influence—to say things that the audience for my Periscopes is going to want to hear.
But I think... can you confirm this for me? Have you all heard me say things that you didn't like? Because that's the test, right? Can people confirm that for me? Have I said things that you are pretty sure you didn't agree with? Because that's where I want to be. I want to be where I have some credibility but there are still some things you say, "I absolutely disagree with that part. That's not what my team wants to think is true."
Mike Rowe is an interesting suggestion. I haven't seen Mike Rowe talk about politics per se. I would say Mike Rowe is more like a person of the people, so he's more about the people than the politics in my opinion. Look how small the pool was of people that you even assumed could be unbiased.
Peggy Noonan—there's a good suggestion. I don't know if Peggy Noonan is unbiased or I just want to think that because she's such an amazing writer. Once you become such a good writer, you don't see the bias anyway; it just looks like it's a good opinion. But I'll bet that's true though. I'll bet there are cases where she's going against her side. So let's add her to the list, Peggy Noonan, as an unbiased source.
I can see that many of you are agreeing that you disagree with me on a number of topics, and that's where I want to be. I want to be where you all have something to disagree with me on, because that's the only way I could be credible. If you agreed with everything I said, then you would just know I'm saying things you want to hear. Keith Olbermann? I assume you're joking.
"You think it's okay to kneel for the anthem, I don't." Well, that's not exactly a restatement of my opinion. Somebody said that I think it's okay to kneel for the anthem and the person who made the comment says that they don't, therefore we disagree. That's not exactly my view. My view is that the kneeling for the anthem is offensive by design. It doesn't make sense to me to criticize something for being offensive when the person who did it is doing it for that purpose. It's supposed to be offensive; that's what gets your attention. That's what makes it a protest. There's a little bit of offensiveness baked into the design of it.
My preference is people respect their country and its symbols. That's my preference, same as yours. But as an observation, the people doing it have the right to do it and they got our attention, and therefore it's effective. So I can like it for being effective at the same time I can share your discomfort with it. I don't think we're on different teams.
Tucker Carlson will go against his side. I think I've seen that, I'll give you that.
## [The Biased Brain and Pattern Recognition](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbSHNkC_7qU&t=2491s)
Apparently somebody on the left is watching this and noted how many people who lean right are saying that other people are biased. You all know you're biased, right? Let me ask you the most interesting question. I haven't seen anybody ask this question. Do you consider yourself biased in your political opinions? Do you consider yourself, just you personally—not people in your party—but do you consider yourself biased in politics? Yes or no?
I actually don't know how this is going to go. I don't have a prediction of whether people will say they are biased or they are not. The reveal is so interesting.
Camille Paglia, there's a good one. An unbiased person, she's been all over the place. Shepard Smith does disagree with Fox a lot, that is true, but that's different than being unbiased. "Nobody is unbiased." Correct. Good answer. "How could we not be?" Oh, I am so happy! I'm happy about the people who say yes, they're biased. That is really, really good. Wow, I'm so impressed with all of you. Not all of you—some of you said you were not biased, but only like a sprinkle. It looks like the overwhelming number of people answering the question are saying of themselves, "Yes, we're biased."
Do you know how important that is? If you're trying to get to this point where you actually do understand the world a little bit—and maybe understanding the world is an impossible dream, but at least having a more effective ability to predict the world and to navigate the world—it's very important that you understand how biased you are. Because if you don't get that part, your journey can't even start. You can't start your journey toward understanding the world at a better, more productive level until you know how biased you are. And all of you seem to know that. That is tremendous.
I wonder if you would have had the same answer three years ago. It feels like that's the change that I predicted in 2015: that how we saw the world would change. Not just politics—how we saw reality would change. This is the sort of change I was talking about, where people go from "I'm right and you're wrong" to "Holy hell, we're living in two different movies and maybe neither of us is right."
How many of you are starting to see the world in terms of these two movies that the world is trapped in on a perpetual basis? As soon as you start seeing the world as two movies as opposed to right and wrong, then you start your journey. That's where it starts to release you from your mental prisons. It looks like a lot of you are halfway out of your mental prisons.
The book I'm writing right now that you won't see for a year will be about how to escape from your mental prisons. It'll be some techniques that some of you already know, but I'll put it all together in a way that you haven't seen before.
"Biased but not prejudiced." Somebody said that. The other big perceptual shift that I think the world is starting to enjoy—and enjoy is the right word, because it's going to make life better—looks like this. Here's the old way of thinking: some people were biased and some people had risen above it. That way of looking at the world gives you bad results.
A better way to look at the world is that every one of us is biased because we're born that way. Our brains are pattern-recognition machines and you can't turn them off. They can't not recognize patterns. The problem is a lot of the patterns are false. They're just coincidences. They're just our experience giving us a special bias. If every time you saw somebody wearing a hat, they punched you in the face, eventually you would say, "People with hats are all bad people." And that wouldn't be true; you just happen to be the one person who got punched in the face by everybody with a hat. So it's natural that you would be biased.
You can't turn that off, but you can use your higher level of thinking to recognize it when it's happening and to develop systems to get past it. That's the win. The win is not "be unbiased"—it is impossible. As long as you think that's possible, there's no hope. It is impossible to be unbiased. It is possible to layer on top of your bias some systems, some technique, some practice, some greater awareness, some better understanding, a little more empathy. Those things are like this little protective layer that keeps all your bad stuff under control.
Having "bad stuff" is not something you should try not to do, because you can't. Your bad stuff is the normal way your brain is designed. It's designed to recognize patterns. It's not your fault that some of the patterns you observe are not real. The natural way of your brain is to be biased. You just have to figure out the stuff to layer on top of it to keep it down, to keep the civilization safe. Civilization is up here. You've got to build this little barrier of empathy, technique, systems, laws, checks and balances. You've got to get a lot of stuff right to keep the bad impulses away from civilization.
As long as you're thinking of the world in those terms, you can become a lot more forgiving of other people who have lapses. You can also be more useful, because if somebody's having trouble keeping those bad impulses under control, you might have some tools. I'm hoping I can help you with that, and I will with the coming book especially—give you some tools to help people recognize when they're acting on bias versus when they have some level of control on it. I think that that can be done.
That's all I've got for now. I will talk to you later.