I'm never sure what to think of Pat and his relationship with the truth, on any topic. Is he willfully and knowingly lying right now in this interview? Does he actually believe this? Or, to take it one step further, has he just convinced himself that he believes this, cognitive dissonance be damned? Does Pat even experience cognitive dissonance?
I'll never know the answers to the above but as far as I can tell, one way or another, Pat will usually believe the version of a story that is -- somehow, some way -- most convenient to him. You can witness this tendency play out in real time throughout the Josiah Tapes with a supposed confidant.
This isn't to say Pat doesn't knowingly lie at times. The culprit responsible for the vandalism of his motorcycle sure looked exactly like him. And, more assuredly, his use of the word "simply" is a tell of his that's repeated itself throughout court appearances and interviews: anything following it is going to be a massive, bold-faced lie.
Recently I listened to an interesting interview where the interviewee stated you should ignore most business advice because the conditions that made said business a success are no longer the same by the time you hear this advice. It was in the context of tech entrepreneurship and it made me think, and I believe this is largely true -- and based on personal experience unrelated to tech, to life in general. A good deal of the things I've done to grow a successful career couldn't be replicated 1-to-1 now, and I've dated women outside my league who I met on a day I had a fire burning inside that left a strong impression. A lot of things come down to time and place.
But when business leaders give advice that might not play today, they aren't exactly lying. Our egos are pretty good at avoiding the recognition of luck, or whatever you want to call it.
All this is to say, I wouldn't say Pat's being duplicitous about his Twitter and his past success of signing book deals. But I think it's safe to say his next deal, if there is one, will be different.