Episode 3121 - The Scott Adams School 03/24/26

Summary

Real Coffee with Scott Adams – Episode 3121: The Scott Adams School (03/24/26)

Date: March 24, 2026
Theme: Viewing current events and personal relationships through Scott Adams’s "persuasion filter," focusing especially on reframing how we judge mistakes, the psychology behind social and political division, and the latest developments in politics and policy.

---

Episode Overview

This episode, hosted by Erica with regular co-hosts Marcella and Owen, discusses current social dynamics, interpersonal reframing techniques from Scott’s book "Reframe Your Brain," and a featured clip from Scott Adams himself on the illusion of division in America. The team also explores recent political news, including climate change studies, the ICE/TSA staffing solution, and ongoing Supreme Court arguments about election laws—always tying these news items back to core themes of persuasion, psychology, and incentive-driven behavior.

---

Key Discussion Points

1. Reframing How We Judge Others’ Mistakes

Based on "Reframe Your Brain," page 160—discussed from [06:05] onward.

• Erica reads and reflects on Scott’s advice to judge people not by their mistakes, but by how they respond to those mistakes.
  • Key quote (B, Erica) [06:05]:
    “Rather than judge others by their mistakes, I recommend a different standard. Judge people by how they respond to their mistakes.”
  • Personal application: Erica shares how owning mistakes can be liberating and comments on how public apologies (e.g. on reality TV) often shift blame rather than model genuine remorse.
  • Group insight:
    • Owen: Introduces Alison Armstrong’s "husband apology" — giving an apology for relationship harmony even if you don’t feel at fault, but stresses the importance of authentic acknowledgment ([07:52]-[10:24]).
    • Marcella: Stresses rapid ownership and correction; don’t dwell in the past ([11:00]).
    • Owen: Connects Scott’s simulation/free-will theory to being less judgmental—if free will is an illusion, it makes little sense to judge others harshly ([11:57]):
      “You would be much less judgmental of people… because you understand that they don’t have free will. So it’s kind of like a free pass to get rid of that judgment. And I think he very much lived that.”

---

2. Scott Adams Clip – The "Dopamine Addiction" Theory of Division

Scott’s own words, featured from [14:24]–[21:11]; discussion follows.

Summary of Scott’s Theory:

• Division in America is largely illusory and driven by social media, not in-person interaction.
• Online, divisive behavior is rewarded with dopamine (likes, retweets), but in person, the risk of unpleasantness (cortisol) makes most people avoid conflict.
• Key quote (Scott) [18:38]:
  “As long as there’s a dopamine reward for division, you get more of it. But as soon as you walk out the door to the real world, you can’t get that hit…it’s just the dopamine that’s making you talk.”
• Reframing: You’re not divided from fellow citizens—you’re addicted to the dopamine cycle.
• Analogy: Political outrage is like drug addiction—both warp your perception and behavior.

Panel Reactions ([21:41]–[27:49]):

• Marcella: In-person, people avoid conflict; online, they’re incentivized to fight. Sometimes, especially in highly polarized communities, real-life conflict can break through, but online division is mostly an addictive distraction.
• Owen: Praises the “economic/psychological lens”—social media is engineered to maximize engagement by rewarding emotional reactions. The online “consensus” is often an illusion shaped by a vocal minority.
• Erica: X/Twitter feels like the center of the universe for some, but the real world is usually much less reactive—even acquaintances are often unaware of major online dramas.
  • “You got yourself all worked up and crazy and it’s not going to change anything.” ([27:49])
  • Stresses helping one another in real life transcends divisions.

---

3. Current Events and Policy Updates

Segment starts at [30:22].

A. Climate Change – CO2’s Role Challenged

• Owen: Shares a new study (Japanese researcher D and others) arguing that climate change since 2000 is due to clouds and solar variability, not CO2 ([30:22]).
• Group: Lighthearted reaction; refer to Scott’s history of poking fun at climate models ([31:28]).

B. ICE Agents Filling TSA Staffing Shortage

• Marcella ([31:44]): Trump ordered ICE agents to help at major airports during TSA shortages—a move received positively by the public.

  • Visual persuasion: Quick action (ICE agents = short lines) creates a positive association with ICE, counter to negative Democratic messaging.
  • Key quote ([34:41]):
    “You not waiting in line for three hours, instead waiting in line for 20 minutes or 15 minutes, that gives you that visual effect… it actually solved the issue.”

• Erica & Owen: See it as a persuasive and pragmatic stroke by Trump, especially with spring and Easter travel (Erica [38:19]).

• Team: Democrats appear stuck in a cycle of opposition for its own sake, often pandering to a fringe base and failing to appeal to moderates ([41:11]-[44:41]).

C. Supreme Court Arguments – Mail-in Ballots and Election Day

• Erica & Marcella ([45:17]-[48:39]): The Supreme Court is leaning towards disallowing mail-in ballots arriving after election day.

  • Justice Thomas: "By election day" should mean by the day, not later.
  • Owen: Notes hypothetical concerns about voters changing their minds after election day, further complicating the issue ([48:39]).

• Panel on Voter ID ([50:14]-[57:41]):

  • Erica: Voting should be done in person, on a national holiday with an ID.
  • Owen: Voter ID and proof of citizenship (passport or birth certificate) are practical and shouldn’t be barriers—most people have these already.
  • Marcella: Real ID is not sufficient proof of citizenship; future policy needs to address this gap.
  • Group agrees: Election integrity should be increased and voting should not be complicated for citizens.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Scott Adams ([18:38]):
  “As long as there’s a dopamine reward for division, you get more of it. But as soon as you walk out the door to the real world, you can’t get that hit.”
• Erica ([13:30]):
  “I don’t agree with it, but I agree with it, you know what I’m saying?”
• Owen on persuasion ([24:42]):
  “It’s brilliant what Scott said, and I think it’s a classic example of him using his economics background and his knowledge of psychology…”
• Marcella on moving forward ([11:00]):
  “Take ownership of your own mistakes and move quickly. Correct, course correct, and move forward. Don’t live in the past.”

---

Important Timestamps

• [06:05] – Reframing judgment: "Judge people by how they respond to their mistakes."
• [14:24]–[21:11] – Scott Adams’s featured clip: the dopamine framework for political/social division.
• [24:42] – Owen expands on the economic/psychological lens explaining social media’s addictive nature.
• [30:22] – Climate study challenges role of CO2.
• [31:44] – ICE agents working at airports.
• [45:17]–[48:39] – Supreme Court mail-in ballot arguments.

---

Tone and Language

• Conversational, practical, slightly irreverent.
• Honest personal anecdotes and confessions about online addiction, stress, and political frustration.
• Frequent callbacks to Scott’s fundamental themes: persuasion, psychology, simulation/lack of free will, and the importance of reframing.

---

Conclusion

The episode blends personal growth advice (handling mistakes and judgment), hard-hitting commentary on the mechanics behind American division (it’s your dopamine, not actual social breakdown), and practical discussion of current political events. The panel consistently circles back to Scott Adams’s core ideas—persuasion, reframing, and the pitfalls of reacting to incentives without awareness. The overarching advice: own your actions, be skeptical of online outrage, and strive for empathy and sanity in both public and private life.

---

Transcript

[A]

AI Is incredible. It can teach you how to fry an egg and even write a poem, pirate style. But it knows nothing about your work. Slackbot is different. It doesn't just know the facts. It knows your schedule. It can turn a brainstorm into a brief. And it doesn't need to be taught, because Slackbot isn't just another AI It's AI that knows your work as well as you do. Visit slack.com meetslackbot to learn more.

[B]

I know. He's so even keeled. He never changes.

[C]

You look great, too, Marcella. And you, Eric.

[B]

Oh, thank you.

[D]

Good morning, everybody. Steve the Texan again. Oh, my God.

[B]

We should take bets on this pre show.

[D]

Oh, there he is.

[C]

You're slow on the trigger today, Stephen.

[B]

You can never leave, Lang. We're always looking for you.

[C]

We need our life, Gracie.

[B]

I'm turning on my locals chat.

[C]

SJV Rick is there.

[B]

There's one Andy Wang in the house. Chuck, slap it on a skillet.

[C]

All our favorite people are showing up.

[B]

Dr. Von Hardy in the house with us live. That's amazing.

[D]

Whoa.

[B]

All right, you guys, welcome in. Is it Tuesday already?

[D]

It feels like Friday.

[B]

It does. It actually does. Oh, my gosh. Who can tell me about the stock market? I didn't get to look. Are we up? Are we down?

[C]

We're down today.

[B]

We're down. Are we down?

[D]

Don't sound so happy.

[B]

I know. Hey. All right, you guys, come on.

[D]

Look at your stock. Don't look at your stock.

[B]

There will be a quick reframe today and another special treat today that we're going to do in the. The kickoff of the show after we do our sip, and I hope you enjoy it. All right. I feel like we're all in here. And just so we know, it's Tuesday, March 24, 2026, in the year of our Lord, as some people say. All right, you guys ready? Let's do this.

[E]

Well, it looks like we got a little company up here. Better navigate through. Okay. Looks like the simulation is back on track.

[F]

Hi, good morning.

[E]

This is Coffee with Scott Adams. I'm coming to you today from the simulation control room. This is where the simulation that you believe as your reality is formed. And I'll be tweaking it a little bit this morning. You can. You can see that there's a lot going on up here. It's pretty busy space. A lot of people trying to tweak your reality. But I'm the. The ultimate author, and so you're in good hands today. And we're going to Be tweaking the simulation for your benefit today. It's going to be really good. Watch this earth.

[F]

But first, what do you need?

[E]

You know what you need? Come on. You know what you need? Yeah. You need a cup or a mug or a glass. A tank or chalice or stein. A canteen, jug or flask. A vessel of any kind. Fill it with your favorite liquid.

[F]

I like coffee.

[E]

And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure. The dopamine hit of the day.

[F]

The thing that makes everything better.

[E]

It's called the simultaneous sip. Goes. Oh, yeah.

[C]

All right. Very good. Nice sip. I can feel reality being tweaked for my benefit already.

[B]

Like, you could hear those things flying by him. That must have been scary. Amazing sound effects. Good sound effects. Welcome everybody. When we're off camera, the three of us are are doing our sip. We can see each other off screen. We're doing our sips together. So we're all sipping together. So listen, I had to move our guest for today, Bobby Sauce, till next week. He was so kind to oblige. So he'll be coming on next week. I'm excited for you to meet him. So that's why it's just three of us today, because we have something else planned. Okay, so let's do. My name is Erica. Welcome to the Scott Adams School. By the way, you guys reframe your brain. Page 160. Okay. I was at work last night thinking, what do we want to do today? And I think this will be fun. So I'm going to read from Scott. The reframe called judging others by their mistakes. Okay, let's do it together. I already showed you how to make yourself immune to the criticism of strangers. Now it's time to learn how to be less critical of others for the social benefits, but also to protect your mental health. When others make mistakes that complicate our lives, our most common reaction is anger at the offender. At the same time, we know everyone makes mistakes for all manner of reasons we don't understand at the time. If we use that standard to judge others, it will keep us busy hating half the people we meet. Worse, you might automatically apply the same standard to yourself and end up baking a big old self hatred cake. No one wants a self hatred cake. Rather than judge others by their mistakes, I recommend a different standard. Judge people by how they respond to their mistakes. That's a standard you can hold yourself to with some chance of success. So the usual frame is judge people by their mistakes. The reframe. Judge people by how they Respond to their mistakes. When you observe someone handle their mistakes with confidence and empathy, fully acknowledging any harm done, you're seeing the best a person can do. We can't expect people to be error free, but we can certainly ask them to handle their mistakes with class. When a person handles their mistakes well, you instinctively trust them, and you probably should if you want to be trusted in your own life. That's a great model to follow. Make your mistakes, apologize if needed, and announce your plan for avoiding the same mistake in the future. People will notice. So true. I had a little bit of a day yesterday and I vented and I thought about it and I had to also give myself a bit of like a 24 hour rule at least, but I didn't need that amount of time. I, it, it ended quickly. But it's so true that, you know, how does someone handle the mistake they made? You know, how you ever see, like, who watches the Real Housewives of anywhere? Guilty pleasure. Guilty. And all of these people, when they apologize for a mistake they made, they're like, I'm sorry if it made you feel that way. And it's like, oh my God, you actually made a mistake, but now you're putting it back on them instead of having the ownership, like, I'm sorry that the thing I caused you pain. Like, own it. And so I just want people to understand that we do have to own our mistakes. It doesn't hurt. It actually feels good when you make a mistake and you realize and maybe you get called out for it or maybe you figured it out on your own later, just own it. Like fully own it. And if you don't want to own it and you want to put the blame on someone else, then that also shows who you are as a person. But you have to understand that people are going to judge you by that. And that's all we have to go by. So I'm going to ask Owen first. You know, what do you.

[C]

Are you recommending the husband apology?

[B]

What is that?

[C]

I think Scott talked about the husband apology. It's, it's so there are situations, you know, in a relationship, like a marriage, where both people think they're right and they think the other one's wrong. And Alison Armstrong kind of recommends this as well as a way to help men and women get along better. Is that when, when the way she explains it is when a woman in a relationship feels like she's been wronged by the man, she, like, goes into this. I forget if it's sympathetic or parasympathetic like you know, her nervous system's going nuts and she can't even breathe. And, like, she's just out of her normal mode and she can't get back there until she gets an apology. But there are many situations where the man doesn't think he did anything wrong. And so what do you do? And she recommends this husband apology, which is basically just the guy says he's sorry and gives the apology even though he doesn't think he's wrong.

[B]

I don't know about that. I mean, I feel like that's like a relationship issue more than a, you know, go out into the world and how you represent yourself issue, because.

[C]

Well, so I didn't quite finish. I want to explain. She also says the very important thing for a woman in that situation is to accept that apology and not go after him. If the woman accepts the apology and recognizes that it's a gift, it's a gift to get that apology because it allows her to go back into her normal mode of feeling that that will work out well. But if she doubles down, if she goes after him, if she starts getting even more angry or in any way punishes him for doing that, she'll never get that husband apology again.

[B]

So we shouldn't judge the apology on a scale of 1 to 10. We should just accept it.

[C]

Well, it's not so much about, was the apology good enough? I think it's more just if the husband gives the apology, the woman should just show gratitude or at least accept the apology and not. Not say, I was right and you, you know, and like, keep going. Because if you do that, then the man just learned that that doesn't work, and he's never going to do that again.

[B]

Aw.

[C]

Well, so this is just part of her coaching for both men and women in terms of how to get through these situations. But I think it falls somewhat in line with what it was in the reframe that, you know, if you're judging more based on how the person handled the mistake as opposed to the mistake itself, then, you know, you have a much better chance of getting along with people. And like Scott said, if you don't do that, then you're probably not going to get along with very many people. Because everybody makes mistakes.

[B]

Yeah. And be sincere. What do you think, Marcella?

[D]

Well, I. I think you need to take ownership of your own mistakes and move quickly. Correct course, correct quickly and move forward. Don't think of the past. Don't, don't. Don't live there. Go forward and. And say, apologize who you need to Apologize to and move forward quickly. So I'm the jocko person. You know, that's right. Take ownership of everything that you are mean.

[B]

Most people feel better for doing it and hearing it.

[E]

Yeah.

[D]

And if you quickly correct what you're doing and you, you, you move forward quickly, that it won't, how would I say, snowball into a bigger argument.

[B]

Right. And resentment won't set in and. Yeah. All right, good. I like it. I think, I think that was pretty self explanatory. So if you guys have to write any wrongs. Oh, go ahead, Owen.

[C]

Well, I was just going to say, I mean, I think Scott was a great example of this, that he was probably one of the most nonjudgmental people that I've ever met or encountered. And I think it is tied into his simulation theory and his theory of lack of free will. And, and that was actually my insight, trying to just process his idea of people not having free will. Because on one level it's like, okay, if people don't have free will, then like, okay, what is like, how does that change your behavior? How does that change how you think about people or how you feel about people or how you act around people? Because in many ways it's, you know, the way he presents it, it's like, well, you have the illusion of free will, so you think you have free will, but you don't. And it's like, okay, well if that's the case, then how is it any different? Like, why does it matter if you believe or not whether someone has free will? Because if they have the illusion of free will and you act like you have free will, then it's no different. Right. And I think what I, what I had, the insight I had was just, okay, the, the net result I see is that you would be much less judgmental of people. You would say, okay, you know, we might still need to punish criminals because that's the only way the system will work and things like that. That he would say, but at the same time, you cannot judge people for being different or for making mistakes because you understand that they don't have free will. So it's kind of like a free pass to get rid of that judgment. And I think he very much lived that.

[B]

I'd agree with that. I don't agree with it, but I agree with it. You know what I'm saying? Okay, I love that. Thanks for letting us get that reframe in. So you guys, lots of division, right? We keep talking about the splintering off of political parties, friendship groups, Opinions, you know, like we're, we're, we're too much. It's too much. And most of it, for most of us, we're on X or we're on social media or whatever. And you see a lot of this playing out there. And I found this clip from Scott, and we're going to just kick back and let it play. It's, it's several minutes long, so that's going to be fun for us to get, get to see Scott. Okay, so let's play this, and then we'll come back and chat it out. And then we're going to go to news. Okay, so here we go.

[F]

I want to, I want to toss out a explanation for the division in the country. All right. And it's one you haven't heard before. I tested it out on my Man Cave live stream last night. Got a good response. So I'm going to try it again. And it goes like this. If you, if you talk to somebody in person, how likely are you in 2023 to want to get into a political conversation? I'm going to answer the question for you while I watch your answers. Probably close to zero. Because you know that in 2023, if you get into a political conversation with somebody whose views you don't already already know. Now, if it's somebody who's really close to you and you already know their views and you're just saying something you know they're going to agree with, that's fine. But you would not enter a, let's say, a cocktail party without knowing the people and launch into a political conversation because your odds of, you know, they're being on your side are, you know, 25 or something. So people will stay away from the person. All right, now let me turn that into a mechanical process. So now I described it on a social, conceptual level. Now I'm going to turn it into a machine. What, what would be your experience if you got into a political conversation and it turned ugly? You would produce cortisol. Your body would produce cortisol, and that makes you feel bad because it'd be tense. So tension makes you feel bad and trains you not to do it. So that's why we don't do it in person. Now let's go to social media. When I see a tweet from Rob Reiner and I think, you know, I bet I could make my followers laugh with this clever cutting rejoinder, and they'll send my little, you know, little post and I'll get a bunch of, you know, positive reinforcement Retweets and hearts and I'll get a bump of dopamine. So when I'm in person, I don't cause division. I just get along with everybody because I don't want cortisol and that's my only option. Well, the risk, right? I mean, maybe I could find somebody like minded, but I'm not going to take the risk of a cortisol like cluster bomb that I created for myself. But online is nothing but dopamine. So I'm like, don't mean addicted, it's just an addiction. So the division in the country is not an in person division. We all know that. We all know the division is fake because we only do it online. If you put me in person with anybody, you could drop me into a crowd of the most rabid Democrat anti Trumpers, and if they didn't ask me any political questions and let's say they didn't recognize me, I could get along fine. I wouldn't have the slightest problem. In a, in an event where every single person was a progressive, I wouldn't have any problem. I could easily get along with them, make permanent friends. But as soon as you put me online, I'm just a dopamine fiend. So when we're talking about the division, if you want to talk about the division, conceptually and who said what, you get nowhere. You don't get any understanding what's happening. You know, if you ask most people what's causing the division, what would they say? Well, the other side, duh, I'll tell you who's causing the division. It's those people I'm getting my dopamine hit. Insulting the people that I'm getting my rocks off from insulting, they are the cause. But I might as well enjoy it. I might as well enjoy mocking them because I didn't cause it. Like, I'm not, it's not me, but of course it's you. You're getting your dopamine hit, they're getting their dopamine hit. It's dopamine. So as long as there's a dopamine reward for division, you get more of it. But as soon as you walk out the door to the real world, you can't get that hit is simply not available to you. So you go into a different chemical cost benefit analysis. You go, well, I don't want any cortisol and that's the only thing available because I get in some stupid fight that I don't need. So every time you fall into the trap that the people on the other side of you politically are broken problem monsters, and they must be defeated. Just remember, that's your addiction talking. That's your addiction talking. It's just like if you were on fentanyl and you had an opinion that the fentanyl had given you, like, oh, it doesn't really hurt me, you know, whatever the fentanyl tells you to think. Right. So the parrot, it's, it's just the dopamine that's making you talk. Once you realize this is a reframe, by the way, by the way, if you didn't know, I wrote an amazing best selling book that you can buy right now in all its forms. Pretty soon we'll have the hardcover in days. So here's the reform. The reframe is you're addicted to dopamine. There is no division in the country. And, you know, when I said the Desantis people are coming after me with like, weird, you know, just flailing claims about Vivek that don't pan out, in my opinion. I don't feel bad about them and I don't feel that they're my enemies because, you know, I would be perfectly happy with a President Desantis. They're definitely not on the other team for me. But at the moment they're acting out. And the acting out to me looks like they're, they're desperately searching for dopamine because they're having a, they're having a negative, well, probably a dopamine disadvantage because their candidate's not killing it right now and Vivek is. So if you see it as some people having a dopamine emergency, that they were all happy that, oh, I picked the right one this time. Imagine, I mean, I guess I have to imagine it because I didn't do it. Imagine if I thought Desantis was going to carry me over the line to victory and then it just all fell apart or it looks like it's falling apart, you wouldn't feel good and you'd probably act out. And that's what we're seeing. So just remember, you're an addict. You're not somebody who has division with anybody in your country.

[G]

Introducing Home Care Plus, a new subscription service from Lowe's that helps make life easier by giving members hand with home maintenance. Let Lowe's tackle the tasks you keep meaning to do, like electric dryer, vent cleaning, replacing hard to reach light bulbs, and more. Subscribe to Home Care plus for just 99 a year and consider your to do list done. Members get more at Lowe's available in select zip codes only. Cancel anytime. Non refundable fee. Product purchase required Terms and service restrictions apply. Details@lowe's.com Terms subject to change.

[B]

I love it. I love it. I almost don't even want to say anything more about it because it's just so perfect. And I love imagining that there is no division in the country and that we're just addicted to the dopamine and maybe some people are addicted to cortisol. I mean that could happen too. So Marcela, I'm going to come to you first. You know, what do you want to say about that?

[D]

I mean, is true what he's saying? Because you always see people arguing online, but that same people, if you were to put them in front of each other, they would not be doing that either because in person it. It takes. The cortisol goes up, I guess, or it. The stakes are higher when you have to actually be in person. However, in California, there is you when you're here as a conservative, you do have to try to get along with the other side, otherwise it would be impossible to live here. So. But the other side, if they ever find out you're conservative, you hear from them in person without any dopamine hit, that you should be canceled or this or that or the other or how dare you and so on and so forth. So that's just my take times.

[B]

It's not even political division, it's like division on anything. I mean, I feel like, you know, online we're fighting about anything and everything and it doesn't even have to be political. It's like, you know, I like chunky peanut butter, I like smooth peanut butter. It's like anything to argue. And I think if we look at that as an addiction, maybe, I mean, myself included, I'm one of the sassiest people out there, but I'm going to try to look at that like as a dopamine addiction that maybe I need to back off of a little bit. Listen, don't get me wrong, I can't help what I can't help, but I'm gonna try to think about it a little bit. Yeah.

[D]

And what you're saying just came to me as, you know, regarding whether you know what peanut butter you like or what sandwiches or whatever it is, coffee, etc, a lot of it is distraction for people. They have their own problems in their lives, you know, I assume, and they rather deal with things online or get in an argument with someone online than. Rather than. Than take ownership and deal with their own problems. So it's kind of like sort of like a pseudo therapy.

[B]

Yeah, it's true. It's a distraction. I think all of social media is a distraction. We're so distracted that, like, you know, we're not even really touching grass anymore. And I mean, we are, but not like we used to. What do you say, Owen?

[C]

I think it's brilliant what Scott said, and I think it's a classic example of him using his economics background and his knowledge of psychology and kind of using that economics frame to explain what's going on. That, you know, everything's based on incentives, everything's based on, you know, where do you get your rewards from, where do you get your punishments from and how do you work to try and get more rewards and less punishment. And I think that definitely drives a lot of human behavior. And I think social media is very much set up to do that very intentionally to, you know, get you reward or make you feel rewarded, get you that dopamine hit when you get lots of likes or lots of reposts and great replies and when you get all sorts of crap back, you get some of the stress or, you know, that sort of thing. And I think they very much have applied that across all social media, not just X. About, you know, how do we keep people addicted to this application? I mean, there's some lawsuits going on right now about that, that meta and I forget, I think it might have been meta and meta and Google, I think, are involved with that. And you know, it's, it's. I think it is very true that at least that they designed those applications to addict you. And so they went deep in psychology and figured out, okay, based on all these different characteristics of people, how do we personalize things for people, how do we give them the things that are going to keep them coming back, how do we keep them engaging, how do we keep them replying and posting? And that's all about how do we give them that dopamine hit, you know, the infinite scroll and you know, like, there's always something more to look at and there's another dopamine hit right around the corner. And you know, so I think it's very true that the online environment encourages that kind of behavior. And I also think, and some people point this out from time to time, that it's like X isn't real life. And you know, there's one reaction to that that's like, well, yes, it is. These are real people saying what they feel. But the view of reality you get from X, I think is very different than if you just walk down the street and talk to people or what you see in your personal life or at work or any of that. It's very different than what you see online. People don't behave the same way and they probably don't even have the same views. And certainly they're probably not at the same level of political knowledge and following and all of that. So I think X and all social media, I think, can give you a very distorted view of reality and make you think that something is a much bigger issue than it is or that people really care about something when maybe some few people do, but not that many. It's just this vocal minority that makes it seem like something is the consensus view and they may be very intentionally trying to create that fake consensus view. So I think it's all brilliant. I think he's spot on always.

[B]

Yeah, I think I actually, I don't have many friends that are even on X. And it's funny because I'll be like, oh, did you see or hear blah, blah, blah. And it could be the most crazy happening in our country. They have zero clue. And I remember Cernovich talking about this. I, I forget what the, what the crisis du jour was, but he's like, you know, I got on an airplane with like all this mayhem happening on Twitter and it's the end of the world and whatever. And he's like, I got on an airpl are just chitty chatting. They're watching their move. Nobody was talking about this. So we do have to realize. I, first of all, I do think if you're on X, you are more informed because I do feel like, tell me if you agree with me, you guys, that I feel like all decisions that are happening, like on a worldwide level are stemming from X. Like what the discussions are on X besides, you know, behind closed doors. But I feel like X really drives everything. And then when you realize, I mean, what's the percentage of people that even use X? It is tiny. And then of the people that I do know that are, that are on X, they don't even know, like the accounts to follow that are really the influential, like influencing like administrations and countries. So it's a very small group of people and we're so dug in on it. Like our emotions are going to change something and they're not, you know, they're not going to change anything. Like it might feel good in a second to be flipping out about something or whatever, but when you walk away from your computer or your app or whatever, like Your world's still existing around you and it's like you got yourself all worked up and crazy and it's not going to change anything. So I just think it's just to be careful of the addiction of it. Just to remember we're like all going through this stuff at the same time and we just have different opinions. And I think at the end of the day, if anybody was, you know, drowning and I could help them, I'm not going to ask them what they think about abortion or who do they vote for. I'm going to help them. I'm not going to throw them a turkey sandwich. So let's just remember about the addictions too. I hope you enjoyed having a clip of Scott. We're going to do that more often. So I think that was special today. But I do want to get to news. Okay. I promise that we'd get to news by the halfway mark. So Owen and Marcella have brought some stuff stories for us and I think Owen, you're kicking it off today, right?

[H]

I certainly can. So there's a new study that CO2 is effectively negligible as an explanatory climate change factor since 2000. There's a new regression analysis that shows natural changes in cloud albedo, which I think, I think albedo is like how much sun is reflected off the ice and off the clouds absorbs shortwave forcing and solar activity drive climate change since 2000, not CO2, that anthropogenic meaning from people. CO2 has almost no explanatory power. Power is a causal factor and this independent researcher D from Japan used global temperature, humidity, solar and albedo data and it reaffirms conclusions from prior works like I forget I can't pronounce this name. It's Greek name kut Soyinis from 2024 and soon et al in 2023. So it looks like basically the natural forces are explaining all the CO2 or all the climate change and CO2 doesn't really make any difference.

[C]

So I know Scott, if he got into the story, of course would say I'm laughing. Wait until you find out about climate models.

[B]

Uh huh. I cringed when you said CO2 immediately. I love that.

[D]

Okay, Marcella, so meanwhile ice is cooling things at the airport. President Trump ordered deploying. Sorry for laughing at my own dad joke. President Trump ordered deploying over 100 ICE agents. There are 13 major US airports. Some of them are I believe Long Beach. I don't know lax, but believe lax. J.F.K. hartfield Jackson, Atlanta to address the TSA staffing shortage. As you guys know, there's a DHS funding issue. The Democrats and Republicans have come to a fight in regards to funding DHS talked about it before. So the funny part about this is that yesterday the news here locally in Los Angeles went out to, I believe, Long Beach Airport to try to get some interviews from passengers waiting in line and wanting to know what they thought of ICE and having ICE do TSA work. And everybody that they interviewed, they could not find one bad comment. So it was funny. They couldn't do any kind of negative news. Some people have said it's a triumph of Trump to use ICE agents and, and also have them near people so that they can see that they're not so bad, that they're not bad at all. So Trump was asked about this yesterday at the press gaggle, as we would call it, when he was leaving, and he said that it was his idea and no one else's to have ICE agents be there at the airports for helping the TSA staffing shortage. But he also had done a truth post about it, saying that he would want the Ice Ages to not wear a mask and to show their face. And I think it's very persuasive of him. It's a persuasive move in my. And what Scott would take it as is that he wanted the public to come close to ICE agents and see them in a positive light. You not waiting in line for three hours, instead waiting in line for 20 minutes or 15 minutes, that. That gives you that visual effect. And there's nothing like it. As we know with persuasion, visual is everything or fear. So. But in this case, it actually solved the issue. There was Nick Sorter. Sorter. Sortor. I don't know how to pronounce this name. Sorry, I'm doing the Scott thing.

[B]

Nick Sorter.

[D]

Sorter. Thank you, Erica. He had an image of, like, one of the airports with the huge lines, and then the image afterwards after ICE was deployed with no lines. So it's like, here you go, there's the visual. But I love that.

[B]

And it's just so funny because the exact thing the Democrats are pissed off about, which is ice, they're. This is. It's all fake anyway. But, you know, ICE is already funded for, like, the next however many years. So it's like, listen, ICE is already funded. So. Okay, what I don't get is they. They got what they wanted in one way because Gnome got fired from her position. And now ICE is saving the problem of TSA at the airports. People are like, oh, they're really nice. You know, they, they put the ice in nice. So it's just kind of backfiring. And here's ice taking over and getting the flow going. I don't know. I feel like the, the, the Democrats, I mean, and Hakeem Jeffries, wow, how inappropriate to. Did you guys hear when he said that ice is going to end up, like, shooting people at the airport and killing people? I'm like, you really should. You should be tossed out of office. I think stuff like that should get you tossed out. Like, when you're creating hysteria, that could be, like, mass hysteria. And I think you should get demoted or dethroned or whatever it is, because that was so irresponsible. And why would you want to paint, you know, government workers like that? I mean, these people are already doing a dangerous job. And now you're, you know, I don't know. It makes me feel icky. What do you think?

[C]

O. Yeah, well, I think it is a brilliant stroke on Trump's part because he, you know, this is an example back to what Scott was saying earlier about how we're, you know, people are impacted when you got to stand in line for four hours, they're going to remember that, and they're going to say, why am I standing in line for four hours? And I think everybody pretty much agrees, even on the Democrats side have admitted that the Democrats are the one causing this problem by not funding dhs. And so, you know, that is something that really could move the needle politically, just having hundreds of people in an airport waiting around for four hours and maybe missing their flight like that, that they're gonna remember that they're honestly probably not gonna remember the Iran war six months from now, if it's over soon, but they're gonna remember that they had to wait in line for four hours. And Trump just, with a stroke of a pen, solved the problem, like, just instantly, the lines are cleared. And so I think it's a brilliant move on his part. I think it kind of embarrasses the Democrats that he was able to do it. And, you know, I don't know if it's going to make any difference in terms of how they're going to respond in terms of the funding itself. But, you know, at the same time, Trump is saying he won't sign the funding until he gets the Save America act. So we'll have to see if maybe it shifts over to Trump being the one holding up the DHS funding. But, you know, I think it's. It's Something where it really does make a difference to people. And, you know, it causes a ripple effect through the economy probably, too, because I'm sure people who don't have to fly are probably saying it's not a good time to fly. Maybe it'll start now. Now that they don't have the expectation that they got to plan four hours in advance to get to the airport. But it's a. It's a big deal to people.

[B]

Yeah. And, I mean, he's clearing this up before spring. Well, spring break's going on, but it's continuing to go on. And then there's Easter. So, you know, thank you to President Trump for finding a solution for this, for the people that do want to go see their families or take their vacations. But, you know, the Democrats, it's just like this. They make you realize, I mean, everything makes me realize that they're just working within their own bubble. They don't think about anybody else but themselves. This is not a news flash. Like, I understand, but it's, like, really sad because we. We're supposed to, or we're pretending that we elect people that are going to have the best interests to. Of us, of we the people and our country. And it's just all about a power play. And of. For what, though? Like, what is the power you're getting? And, I mean, but that is a real thing. Like, what is the power you're getting? You have to really follow it through. Like, what's the end goal? Like, why are they doing these things? Why would they want us to be in more danger during a war and when we just had open borders for years and there's all sorts of terror cells here and bad hombres and everything else? So I don't know. I mean, I'm. I try to follow and track it. Maybe you guys in the chat have an opinion of what the end goal is. I mean, even if it's like, oh, Democrats just want these people to vote for Democrats, but, like, for what? Like, what's the end goal? So if we get a Democrat, House, Senate, and. And president, what's gonna happen? Because I feel like Democrat voters need to understand what the outcome is that they want and then work backwards from there. So I feel like we need to figure that out and go backwards from there and what everybody's life would look like, including Democrats, and then maybe that could help bring us together. Anyone have a thought on that?

[D]

I mean, Democrats really don't work. Like, they don't work on reason. So when we talk about motivation, like, having less of a line leads you to this and that and so forth, but progress in a certain linear thinking, that's not how they work. They don't think of motivation. They just think of platitudes and collectivism. And this is what's going to lead for the. We must sacrifice ourselves for this idea that immigrants should stay here and so forth and so on.

[B]

So what do you think, Owen? I'm worried. I mean, I always say I'm worried, you guys. Like, I, I'm worried, but, like, I live in a state of worry. I don't know why. But, like, what do you think the end goal is? I mean, platitudes. Yeah, but, like, what. For what? Like, what if they had all of that? What happens?

[C]

I think the. For, for Democrat politicians, I think the goal is to get back in power. I think everything is geared from that lens. How can we get back in power? And so I think based on that, they're going to resist everything Trump does. They're going to try and paint it all as horrible, no matter what he does, even if it is an 8020 issue that everybody else agrees with. They're going to try and say, look at the 20%. Look at the, you know, look at the bad part, and they're going to try and find any way they can to convince people to vote for them. But I think they do it in a very misguided way, because I think they're mostly just pandering to their base. And by their base, I mean the fringe left, like, they, they, they keep shifting further left because that seems to be the, the ones that are most rabidly opposed to Trump and most aligned with all the arguments they end up coming up with to say, oh, look how horrible Trump is, and look how everything he does is bad. The, the moderates, they're not, they're not appealing to those people, from what I can tell. I mean, it doesn't seem like they really understand or they're not very smart about saying, you know what? We need to shift towards the center. We need to connect with the people that would otherwise vote for Trump and might be convinced not to. And in the midterms, of course, it's more about Congress, but the same concept applies. And of course, Trump still dominates all the headlines every day, so it's going to be part of the equation there. But I think I agree with what Marcella said. I think they're more just based on their ideological lens on things, but they're also more based on just how they feel or how they think people feel. And they're often very out of line with the vast majority of the country because they have this knee jerk reaction where whatever Trump does, they have to oppose it, no matter how unpopular taking that view is. So when more than half the country thinks all the immigrants should go home, or when it's even more skewed where maybe 80% of the people think we should have voter ID or 70% or whatever, it's up there, you know, they do, they just don't care. They just, they just want to have that oppositional position. And I think it is because they're not really able to think with reason and say what would make the most sense. So I, I think it's overall a good thing for the Republicans that things are that way because I think they would be a much tougher opponent if they were shifting more towards the center and if they were trying to have a positive message and if they had a good vision for the future instead of just being. I'm against whatever that Trump guy said, but at the same time, I am worried about the midterms just because it seems like the way the maps are set up and, you know, the way that all the gerrymandering has gone through, it seems like it puts Democrats in a position where they still probably have a very high probability of taking control of the House and maybe even the Senate. So I think that's where our focus should be, is to say how can we appeal to that independent voter or that person that might have been thinking or leaning towards voting for a Democrat, and how do we convince them to vote for the Republican? And that may mean shifting a little further to the center. Again, like not being so fringe right. On things.

[B]

Everybody coming to the center would be good.

[C]

You know, I don't see a lot of the Republican politicians that are running in Congress being that, you know, like, really far hard. Right. But I do think you want to talk about the good things, talk about the positive future, talk about all the great economic things, because that to me is probably still going to be the dominant factor. What does the stock market look like? What does the job picture look like? What does the housing market look like? How affordable are things? What is the price of gas at the pump? Those are going to be the things that I think will determine the outcome of the midterms. I think those are the things we need to focus on this year.

[B]

I, I think you're right. Marcella, can I put you on the spot? I don't know if you have anything about the Supreme Court talking about election Day or if you heard anything about it. But

[I]

are you stuck staring at your W2? Are tax refund worries holding you back? You probably have FOMO. The fear of messing up the fix. Using TurboTax on Intuit credit card Karma. They find every credit and deduction to help you get every refund dollar you deserve or your money back. It's time to overcome your fear of messing up and get your taxes done right. Start filing today in the Credit Karma app.

[B]

I just heard very briefly and like this is hopeful too, is that I think it was Justice Thomas saying, like, listen, you know, you're talking about election Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day Day. And he said, you know, I think it should be a day. And he said, if that's all I had to go by for, you know, figuring out about, you know, when you can vote, talking about mail in votes because they wanted to be able to certify them five days after the election ended was like the argument and they were, you know, so I feel like that was a little convoluted, but maybe Marcela can clean up what I'm trying to say. So.

[D]

Well, yesterday there was arguments in front of the Supreme Court for a case that was in regards to mail in ballots where they count after they are received after the election day. Whether it's by election day or what does by election they mean and what is on election they mean and whether that, those, those, those states that allow mail in ballots to be counted after election. Is that constitutional? Does that violate anything? And I don't really comment on Supreme Court cases when an argument is made because it doesn't really matter in regards to the opinion that the Supreme Court might have. It has come to times where when an argument is made in front of the Supreme Court, you're looking at the justices asking certain questions or finding things you could. It's like reading tea lives tea leaves because it doesn't always pan out to be the, the final opinion that is created by the Supreme Court. So that's how I would caution it. However, yesterday the way that all of the justices were pointing is that they were in agreement the mail in voting ballots should not be allowed after the election day. But there's behind the scenes, there's like lots of people behind the justices that have to do the research. They have to put all the opinions together and figure out and they'll like meet up and they'll converse in writing or however it is and then they have, then they figure out where the justice each justice is in regards to their opinion. So it to be determined, and it's gonna usually be in June when they

[C]

get released, or I. I will say it does seem like they're leaning towards saying you can't count ballots after election day. You know, one of the justices, I think it might have been Alito, I can't remember, was putting forth, like, a hypothetical saying, well, what happens if, you know, a bunch of these ballots are still being delivered, they haven't been delivered yet, and, like, some news comes out the day after election day that might swing the result, Meaning, like, you know, the person they voted for, they no longer want to vote for, they want to switch their vote, or they don't want to vote for that person. And they could potentially call up FedEx or something that's delivering their ballot and say, don't deliver that ballot. And FedEx will do that. Usually they'll. They'll. They'll say, if you don't want your package delivered, we won't deliver your package. And so they could potentially pull their votes after election day based on something that happened after election day. And he was putting forth this hypothetical, like, what if. What if enough of those things would change the result of the election, Then it's not really election day anymore because it's something that happened after the election. And so I think he was trying to show essentially that, you know, this could potentially have a really bad result. And it isn't the intention of the constitution to say, you know, you can make up your mind whenever you want, even after election day, to not vote even after you mailed in your ballot. And so it does seem to me like enough of the conservative justices on the majority are going to vote to say, you can't count ballots that arrive after election day, but we'll have to see exactly where it lands.

[B]

As Marcelo said, my opinion that nobody's asking for is that it should be a national holiday. You have to have ID to vote. And, like, you do it on that day. And even if. If people are, like, far from voting places, like, it's a holiday, it's a national holiday. Like, get yourself there. I know that sound might sound like mean, but, you know, then when people are like, oh, and some people can't get IDs, well, if you can't get an ID, then you're too stupid to vote. I'm not even kidding. Like, if you don't know how to get an id, how could you possibly make an opinion about what's right or wrong for this country? I don't want st people Voting, I don't care.

[C]

I will tell you that my wife, who is very much a Democrat, agrees with you on wanting it to be a national holiday. I don't know if she would agree with you on the voter ID piece, but I think I certainly do. And I think it is still striking to me when they've done these on the street interviews and stuff where black people will be like, of course I have an id. What do you mean? It's like, I can find the city hall where I can get my birth certificate. What the hell? Like, yeah, this is like basic stuff

[B]

where if you go to Costco without one, like, you can't do anything.

[C]

If you can't figure out how to get a state id, then how do you function in life? Like, you can't. Like, you, you, you need it for so many things. Just, you know, opening a bank account. Like, everybody needs to have an id.

[B]

You needed them to buy cigarettes at some point, if you smoke.

[C]

I don't think they've been able to find one example of somebody that said, I can't get an ID or I don't know how to get. Like, they can't. They can't find even one person that.

[B]

Don't forget the poor women, Owen.

[D]

But the issue here is, is. I hear you guys, but the issue here is that IDs themselves don't prove you're a citizen. So that's what I was listening to Senator Mike Lee on Spaces with the redhead libertarian Josie, and he. Somebody came up to, you know, to talk to him. And the issue is that some IDs, driver's licenses, especially in California or anywhere else, they're given to non citizens to drive. Like if you are legal resident or even possibly illegal, you can get a driver's license.

[C]

But would the Save America act fix that? Would the Save America act have some kind of citizenship check as part of the process?

[B]

Yeah.

[D]

So the Save American act doesn't talk about IDs per se. It talks about birth certificate or passport. That's what you would have to show. You would have to show birth or

[C]

natural register to vote, right?

[D]

To register to vote? Yes. When you come in to do the, the actual, you know, even to register to vote, you have to have the birth certificate or ak or if you're not, if you're naturalized or you don't have your birth certificate, your passport and then your ID as well.

[B]

So you need a voter registration card, which. That will make sure that you are a resident. If you have that.

[D]

Yeah. That you're a citizen.

[B]

Yeah. Okay.

[D]

It gets complicated, I guess. So as I was like, even if the Save America act passes, there's still this other side to it.

[C]

I would say the same thing about being able to get your birth certificate or being able to get a passport. Like, anybody can do that. And most likely you already had to, because, like, they have employment checks that require those things. Right. Like, you have to show that you're able to work. And I know there's other conditions that, like, you can be a permanent resident or you can have a work permit or some other thing, but, like, you already need that kind of documentation just to function in life. And, you know, I have a whole stack of birth certificates for my kids because every time they would join, like, baseball, like. Like Little League, they. They would need a birth certificate to show how old they are. And. And so I went downtown and I got, like, 50 copies, and now they have birth certificates, and anytime they need one, they can come to me, and I have a file full of them. And I got more of my own, and I got my marriage certificate, and I got all that stuff, and I bought. Currently do need to renew my passport, but I. I've had passports multiple times. It's not hard to do. And so I don't think it. I don't think there's any argument that it's too hard for people to vote or that it would disenfranchise people, because I think these are just basic things that you probably already have. The vast majority of people already have these documents, and if you don't, you. You need them anyway for other reasons. So you should go get them.

[B]

Drop an emoji in the chat if you want Owen to manage your life, because I do. My God, that is so organized. And also, you know, so. And if you can't go. I'm going to say it this way, then if you can't go, figure out how to get your birth certificate or whatever it is you need. I don't want you to vote. You're stupid. Okay. Like this. You're stupid. So that's all.

[C]

But again, I think this is more about, you know, preventing people from pretending they're somebody else.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Or preventing people from getting registered to vote based on having one of these IDs. That doesn't really prove you're a citizen. And then getting added to the voter rolls, which apparently has happened a lot of times because we've had enough evidence come out that these things are happening. And it. To me, it's not about, like, is it happening enough? Is it happening? You know, it just shouldn't happen at all. And, you know, as Scott has often said, it's important for us to be confident that our elections are secure and that it's at least plausible that the person who won actually did get the most votes from the people that should have been able to vote. And if you don't have that, it just degrades the confidence anybody has in the system. And we're in such a bad state with that, where nobody really trusts that our elections are secure. Nobody really trusts that we aren't having all these shenanigans happening all over the place. And mail in ballots is the worst example of that, where it's like, you know, you never see the person, you don't know who actually filled out the ballot. And so, you know, how do you trust that the leaders we have in Congress are the actual people that got the most votes or that people want to be the leaders?

[B]

We don't.

[D]

Marcella, I was just gonna. There's a lot of people in the chat talking about the real id. The real id, according to Senator Mike Lee, and. And in that chat, in that space, people brought up the real id, and in some states, the real id, you can obtain it without proof of citizenship. So it technically kind of makes it a little more complicated for the Save America Act. But. But, you know, again, he said, you know, anybody can get a birth certificate, anybody can get a passport is not difficult to do. So, you know, like Erica said, if you're. If you can't figure that out, you know, maybe you shouldn't be voting. I'm just saying. And every other country in the world has this, as I can't vote in France, just showing up and going, oh, I have no idea.

[B]

Right? And you can't get health care there either. Just so you know, you guys, the real id, if you. If you go to the airport, it's such a scam. They're like, oh, let me see your real id. And I said, I don't have a real ID because I'm just not going to get one. And then they're like, well, just so you know, starting next week, it's $40. So if I don't have my real ID, they're satisfied with $40 for some reason, or I can use my passport. So I'm just letting you know, I don't know what the point of it is. Like, you could either have your real ID or give them $40. Whatever works. So you tell me how that makes sense. But whatever. So, you guys, we just have Three minutes left.

[C]

Well, I will mention that stocks are now positive, so you're allowed to look at your stocks now.

[B]

Okay, that's good.

[C]

Might not be that way in a minute, but it is right now, right?

[B]

Not that Owen's checking. So stocks. Stock markets up right now, you guys. Quick, go look at it. Take a screenshot. Tomorrow, you guys, BJ will be back with us, and we will get those Canadian questions in for you. We should get Mike Bird on here, too, one day to be our Canadian correspondent. Mike Burr, he might be still looking

[C]

for a UK correspondent, so if you know anybody, let us know.

[B]

I did put some messages out, some feelers out for a UK correspondent. We'll see. We'll see who bites. That would be amazing. Yeah, we're here for you people. All right, so I'm. I'm gonna just, like, wrap us up, you guys, and Happy idoc, if you're here. Start your goodbyes now. And you guys are so amazing. I have to say, the three of us are so obsessed with this chat and with this group and how much fun we have with you and. And that you show up for us for what we're doing to keep Scott's channel going and keep the Scott Adams school going. I hope you like the clip today. We're always trying to improve, and I think we are. And I have to say, Owen and Marcella, shout out to you too. I'm. You know how much I love you both. You're incredible. And I just want.

[C]

Erica.

[B]

Well, thank you, thank you, thank you. So let's have a great rest of the day, you guys. Don't forget about. You know, maybe the dopamine hits are a bit of an addiction, so maybe we should take a deep breath here and there. And that being said, look for me on X posting all day, because I'll be there, but, oh, you know, I can't help myself. Just kidding. All right, so we'll be back tomorrow, you guys. Let's have a closing sip to Shelly and let's have a closing sip to our beloved Scott. We miss you so much right now. We saw him flying in his spacecraft today. We'll see where he is tomorrow. And let's touch grass. Be useful and be kind to everyone. I love you guys and to Scott. Bye, guys.