Episode 241 Scott Adams: Temperament, False Accusations, Voting Persuasion and Ye
Date: 2018-09-30 | Duration: 52:00
Topics
Ye got bullied backstage at SNL for his MAGA hat Would you defend yourself in an angry way, if falsely accused? Dale scoffs and LOLs at “temperament” being applied to men What percentage of sexual abuse accusations turn out to be false? False accusations against people in the public eye are common Why I registered to vote yesterday Persuasion tips for getting like minded people to register and vote Congress slush-fund to pay off their sex accusers How many of those accusations were false? Would that information be relevant to a decision on Kavanaugh?
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
## [Kanye West's SNL Appearance and MAGA Hat Redesign](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=8s)
Hey everybody, come on in here. Is everybody sleeping or in church? Kyle, Duke, Pike, Devon, Stefan, Andrew—it seems it's all guys this morning. No, Donna, we have a few women coming in.
Did everybody see the clip of Kanye, who we now call just Ye? Kanye has decided that his new name will just be Ye. He'll be joining the pantheon of people like Prince and Madonna, people who have one name. At the end of Saturday Night Live, he talked to the crowd and talked about being bullied backstage for wearing his Make America Great Again hat, which apparently he redesigned because he liked a different brim.
Kanye redesigned the Make America Great Again hat. How many of those is he going to sell? Realistically, he's actually a great designer. I haven't really seen the differences between his hat and the main regular hats, but I kind of think it's probably better. It's hilarious that he improved it. He was willing to wear the hat but not the way it was. He probably did fix it.
## [The Pivot to Kavanaugh’s "Temperament"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=131s)
Let's talk about the pivot now from "Kavanaugh is definitely guilty," which is perhaps turning some people off. The notion of convicting somebody in the public's eye of a heinous crime based on unsubstantiated allegations—apparently, not everybody thinks that's a good idea. Surprise: turns out that blaming people for crimes and not having solid evidence is not popular with everyone.
There seems to be a distinct pivot in the throw-everything-against-the-wall effort to stop Kavanaugh to questioning his "temperament." That's the word that keeps getting used: he doesn't have the temperament to be a judge. I have two things to say about that. Number one: what exactly is the temperament you should display when you're sitting in a room for the first time with the very people who, for political purposes, have destroyed your life, the life of your family, and ruined your reputation forever by branding you as a sex offender?
In his mind, it's false. Keep in mind that you and I and most people don't know what happened or did not happen 35 years ago. But you know who does know? Kavanaugh either knows he's innocent or believes it in a way that's quite credible. What is the appropriate way to act in front of the people who just destroyed your family? Is there any such thing as being too angry? Seriously, what exactly is angry enough, and how much would be too angry, given that you're just using words?
All that was said was words, an attitude, and some body language. But what exactly would "too angry" look like in that situation where somebody just tainted you as a sex offender and ruined your whole life? Even if he's appointed, every time he walks down the street, he's going to be "that sex offender guy." That doesn't wash off. Ask Clarence Thomas if people are forgetting his confirmation. I don't think so. Again, I don't know if Clarence Thomas was guilty or innocent, but we can say for certain that it doesn't wash off.
Kavanaugh’s claim that his life is ruined—I've heard some people on Twitter pushing back saying, "How's his life ruined? He's either just going to go back to his excellent job as a circuit judge or he gets confirmed." Well, how would you feel if you were branded publicly as a sex offender and, in your mind, you weren't? You wouldn't like it.
## [Gendered Language: "Hysterical" vs. "Temperament"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=315s)
Here's my second point about that. I think most of you are aware that the word "hysterical," when applied to women, is considered sexist. I agree with that, given the origin of the word. Hysteria comes from hysterectomy; it was associated with women and junk science from the past. The word passed into common usage where you could apply it to anybody, but as a practical matter, it tends to be more applied to women and has a sexist overtone to it.
That doesn't mean every person who uses the word is a sexist, because it's just a common word. But it still comes across that way. An educated person should know to stay away from that word when talking about a woman because it is received as sexist. It seems to me that this word "temperament" is reserved for men. Not every time, not universally—I'm not saying no woman has ever been accused of having a bad temperament—but we saw it applied to Trump and we see it applied to Kavanaugh for what I would consider entirely normal male behavior.
Maybe it's true that Trump yells at people in the course of his job. He might get pretty angry about people attacking him for things he thinks are unfair. Isn't that pretty typical male behavior—to get worked up about stuff, to swear, to yell, to get emotional about being attacked, to defend yourself? If you defend yourself in an angry way, even if you're not being physical, you're being accused of having a bad temperament. Isn't that really reserved for men?
I'm not saying every single time in the history of the world somebody used the word temperament it was sexist. But temperament has entered that arena. Watch how often "temperament" gets applied to men. It's because the conversation is about somebody who is alleged to have done something physical using his physicality. If somebody is big and harmless, they don't bother you. But if somebody is a big male human and has a "bad temperament," it implies physical problems. When they use temperament about Kavanaugh, it is sexist.
## [The Simultaneous Sip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=626s)
How far have we gone without the simultaneous sip? We can go no longer. It's time. Raise your cup, your mug, your glass, your vessel, your chalice filled with the liquid of your choice. I like coffee. Join me. I think it was extra good because I made you wait.
## [Statistics and Realities of False Accusations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=687s)
Here is one of the pieces of information that you would absolutely need to know to make a decision about Kavanaugh's likely innocence or guilt. Since it's not a court but a job interview, it does matter if you think he's probably guilty or probably innocent. Part of that determination would depend on this fact: what are the percentage of sex crime accusations that turn out to be false?
I was watching a Michelle Malkin video in which she was talking about this. She seems like a well-researched sort of person, so I'm going to assume she probably got this right. There's a number that floats around that only 2% of accusations turn out to be false. But when you research that, you find out there's no actual study that would support the idea that it's 2%. Actual studies and estimates by people who do this for a living are somewhere in the 10 to 40 percent range.
I'm not the researcher, but almost nobody in this conversation knows what that percentage is. How would you even know for sure? Just because somebody was accused and went to jail doesn't mean they were guilty. If someone went to trial and was not found guilty, it doesn't mean they're innocent.
If it turned out that 25 percent of accusations were false, is that the number you should apply to this situation? No. The rate of false accusations probably varies a great deal depending on the circumstance. What about the number of times people are falsely accused in the context of a divorce or a custody battle? Probably pretty high. You can't really take the average and say this applies to Kavanaugh.
## [False Memories and Public Life](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=993s)
Famous people, powerful people, and rich people—and I'm going to put myself in that category—we get accused of false crimes all the freakin' time. Me getting accused of something I didn't do is literally every freaking day. I know most of it happens on Twitter. Today, I got in a Twitter back-and-forth with an anti-Kavanaugh person whose belief is that this whole false memory thing is BS.
It took her about 10 seconds to mischaracterize my opinion. The person who is arguing that false memories are rare exhibited one in public. My opinion has been very clear: we'll never know the truth of it. She characterized it as "he's innocent." That's how common false accusations are in my life. One already today. I've had two or three false accusations based on false memory just today.
Is it more common that somebody will have a fake memory in which they insert the wrong person if they're famous? Probably. Famous people are on your mind. You're not going to put someone in a false memory if they're not in your mind. The life of a famous person is one in which false accusations are coming like a fire hose.
I did a little Twitter poll yesterday and asked people if they had been accused falsely of anything. 67% said yes. Two out of three people have been falsely accused of things important enough that they remember them. I think the number's closer to 100%, and the people saying they haven't been are either living very uninteresting lives or they're not remembering.
## [Filtering Truth Through Personal Experience](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=1240s)
If you had ever been sexually abused, what filter are you going to put on this situation? Unless you really want this judge, you're going to say, "I was sexually abused, this guy looks like a sexual abuser to me, I think he's 100% guilty." It won't be based on facts, because we don't really use facts to make decisions.
But there's another large group of people—and I'm in that category—who have been falsely accused of major things. I almost got fired once when I was 20. I was working at a resort as a busboy in college. My boss literally cornered me in a coffee-making area and threatened to kick my ass. He told a story of something I had allegedly said to one of the servers. By the time the story got retold, it had turned into an insult to his sister, whom I hadn't even mentioned.
The server who told the story wrong wasn't even intending to get me in trouble; it was 100% miscommunication. When I told this boss that I didn't say anything like that, do you think he believed me or his sister? He didn't believe me. I'm pretty persuasive, so I talked my way out of it and didn't get fired, but it was very awkward.
I've also been accused by stalkers and people with verifiable mental illness of various crimes. It's a completely ordinary situation for anybody in the public eye. What are the odds of a famous and controversial person like Kavanaugh being the subject of a fake accusation? I would put it at close to 100%.
## [Credibility and the Gang Rape Allegations](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=1487s)
We've seen three accusations, and at least one is so ridiculous that even people who don't want him to be a judge are saying that one—the gang rape part—isn't true. Even without Christine Ford, he is the subject of two other accusations. One is ridiculously untrue in my opinion, and the other one about exposing himself apparently has no credibility according to law enforcement either.
You don't have to wonder if it's likely that there are false accusations. They're right in front of you. Evidence is right there.
Somebody mentioned his beer comments, which were also mocked. I have mixed feelings about that. It was important that he acknowledged he likes beer and drank it in high school, because to not do that would be sketchy. But the way he talked about it made it easy to mock. On the persuasion side, a lot of people drink beer. Republicans like beer. When Kavanaugh associates himself with beer, it might make him more popular with people who also drink beer and have done things that are maybe a little questionable.
## [The "Lying Under Oath" Goalpost](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=1737s)
The goalposts keep moving. Now people say even if he's not guilty, he's disqualified because he definitely lied under oath. They say he got the drinking age wrong in his senior year. That doesn't sound like a lie; that sounds like someone who got a minor fact wrong. Nobody would be prosecuted for getting that fact wrong in public.
The other thing they're accusing him of is "never drinking to blackout." That's something nobody could ever be accused of, even if a hundred witnesses saw him "blacked out." Where do you draw that line? How much do you have to remember or forget to cross that line from an ordinary person who had too many beers and doesn't remember all the details? That's what beer does. You don't have to blackout to have memory problems.
Then there's the yearbook stuff. In my opinion, there's a high likelihood that he lied about the yearbook. If he lied to protect the reputation of a girl named Renata by lying about what it meant—is that important? Does it feel important? It is true that lying under oath can get you in trouble. But it's my understanding that lying or being inaccurate about trivial stuff does not put you in legal jeopardy. You don't get prosecuted for things that aren't terribly important to the case.
If you were accused of murder and you said you bought gum at 7-Eleven when you actually bought cigarettes, that's a verifiable lie, but it doesn't get to the meat of the problem. Does his attitude about girls when he was 17 lead to the question of whether he committed a sex crime? Every 17-year-old boy acts like that. It's an immaterial lie at best.
## [Strategic Consequences and the "Red Tsunami"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=2048s)
I have mixed feelings about Kavanaugh getting appointed. On one hand, I would hate to see a precedent that you could just make an accusation without corroboration and derail somebody's entire life. On the other hand, if he gets on the court, you'd have two Supreme Court members tainted by accusations.
There's a mildly evil part of my mind that kind of wants to see what happens if he doesn't get confirmed. I think what would happen is the highest level of Republican turnout for an election. It would swamp whatever the Democrats did. It would be a repeat of 2016, watching the faces of pundits on TV as they realize the "blue wave" just got killed with a tsunami of red votes.
Trump can win both ways. If he gets Kavanaugh on the court, it will be another major building block in the claim that he's one of the most consequential and effective presidents. If Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed, Republicans are just going to go nuts. You haven't seen anything yet.
I prefer him to win because I want his family to be okay. I haven't seen anything in the last 35 years that would suggest he's anything but a good judge. But if he loses, it's going to be really interesting.
## [Registering to Vote against Incumbents](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=2360s)
I have famously been saying that I don't vote because it keeps me independent and less biased. But I did register to vote yesterday. I was curious about the process, and it turns out it’s easy. You just Google "how to register to vote," click a link, and fill in your particulars.
I registered for one reason only: I registered Independent, and the only votes I'm going to cast are against incumbents who are over 80. I don't care what team they're on or how good they've been. If you're 80 and you're still in Congress, it's time to let some new blood in. In general, we're better off if we lower the age of service.
I'll be voting against Dianne Feinstein because I'm in California. I'm going to vote by mail. I'm just going to look for her name and vote for whoever's running against her. I don't care who it is. I'm just voting against anybody over 80. I'm not suggesting you do it; I'm just telling you what I did.
## [Persuasion Tips for Voter Registration](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=2480s)
If you wanted to persuade people to vote, what could you practically do? I'm going to give you some persuasion tips. This is not about changing anybody's mind from Democrat to Republican; this is about getting somebody to vote who would not have otherwise voted, but you're sure they’ll vote the same way you would.
When a situation is complicated, people won't act. They need something simple. If you can simplify something they are confused about, you’ve taken away 80% of the resistance. People don't like to figure stuff out. They think it might be hard to figure out how to vote.
Persuasion also works by getting someone to do something small first. If you can get them to cooperate in any small way, you've primed them to do a little more. Here's how I’d do it: Google "how to register to vote," find the link for your state, and shorten it so it's not a big, scary link. Use a hyperlink behind words like "go here."
Keep your email to the person as short as possible. Say: "Bob, if you want to register to vote, did you know you can do it by mail? All you have to do is click this link and you can register in less than 60 seconds."
People who don't vote aren't sure they can vote by mail. They think they have to drive to the DMV or find a polling place. Tell them they can do it by mail and it takes 60 seconds. Tell them they don't have to vote for everything; they can just vote for the top few things they understand and ignore the rest.
I haven't voted in so many years that I didn't know how. The fact that I didn't know felt like friction. If you try to persuade somebody, go simple, simple, simple. That is your mission. Report back to me so we can do some A/B testing.
## [The Congressional Slush Fund](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbWS5Tz3xuk&t=2970s)
We keep hearing about the slush fund in Congress to pay off sex abuse accusations. I'm pretty sure that's a true thing. Here’s the thing I want to ask: how many of the accusations that were paid off were false accusations?
If they paid off the accusers specifically because they thought the accusations were not credible, then we have a baseline. I suspect if you looked at their own numbers, you would find many, many false accusations against members of Congress.
Just ask the Democrats who have been accused; they'll tell you they're false accusations. Based on your own numbers, you famous Democrats who have been falsely accused—it looks like 80% of you have been. Let's use that as our baseline when we're understanding this new situation.
That was really clever. I'm going to leave it on that. Have a great day.