[Tengen]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comi...lains-why/

Quote:

SCOTT ADAMS remembers just how the game turned. He was young and improving at chess, but the masterful kid across the board would outmaneuver Adams till the game seemed a runaway. Now, this kid didn’t want to just beat Adams; he wanted to embarrass him. “So after he’d picked away three-fourths of my pieces and I was discouraged,” Adams recounts, “he would offer to turn the board around and play with my pieces.” And then effectively “win” again.

On those occasions, Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert,” got insight into the type of personality that loves not only the challenge of game strategy, but also the thrill of overwhelming the competition. It is the sport of meticulously plotted domination.

And that is part of why Adams believes Donald Trump will win the presidency. In a landslide.

Adams, in other words, believes that Trump himself has turned the campaign game around. On the stump, the real-estate mogul is not running on the knowledge of his numbers or the dissection of the data. He is running on our emotions, Adams says, and sly appeals to our own human irrationality. Since last August, in fact, when many were calling Trump’s entry a clown candidacy, the “Dilbert” cartoonist was already declaring The Donald a master in the powers of persuasion who would undoubtedly rise in the polls. And last week, Adams began blogging about how Trump can rhetorically dismantle Clinton’s candidacy next.

Adams, mind you, is not endorsing Trump or supporting his politics. (“I don’t think my political views align with anybody,” he tells The Post’s Comic Riffs, “not even another human being.”) And he is not saying that Trump would be the best president. What the Bay Area-based cartoonist recognizes, he says, is the careful art behind Trump’s rhetorical techniques. And The Donald, he says, is playing his competitors like a fiddle — before beating them like a drum.

Most simply put: Adams believes Trump will win because he’s “a master persuader.”

The Manhattan mogul is so deft at the powers of persuasion, Adams believes, that the candidate could have run as a Democrat and, by picking different hot-button issues, still won this presidency. In other words: Trump is such a master linguistic strategist that he could have turned the political chessboard around and still embarrassed the field.

Adams does not claim to be a trained political analyst. His stated credentials in this arena, says Adams — who holds an MBA from UC Berkeley — largely involve being a certified hypnotist and, as a writer and business author, an eternal student in the techniques of persuasive rhetoric. (His self-help memoir is titled “How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life.”)

“The most important thing when you study hypnosis is that you learn that humans are irrational,” Adams tells Comic Riffs. “Until you understand that, hypnosis is hard to do. … For me, it was this great awakening to understand that humans are deeply irrational, and it’s probably the greatest influence on me in terms of my writing.”

“This was a trick I learned from Bil Keane,” the late creator of “Family Circus,” Adams tells Comic Riffs. “He basically taught me to stop writing for myself, which I realized I had been doing — writing a comic that I wanted to read.”

So Adams pivoted to write more about the workplace, and the budding “Dilbert” in the early ’90s became “about this huge part of people’s lives that was invisible to the rest of the world and about suffering in a hundred different ways.”

“By simply mentioning that world,” Adams says, the comic connected with readers “on an emotional level.”

And isn’t that essentially, in turn, what Trump is doing? He is acknowledging the suffering of some, Adams says, and then appealing emotionally to that.

And he bolsters that approach, Adams says, by “exploiting the business model” like an entrepreneur. In this model, which “the news industry doesn’t have the ability to change … the media doesn’t really have the option of ignoring the most interesting story,” says Adams, contending that Trump “can always be the most interesting story if he has nothing to fear and nothing to lose.”

Having nothing to lose essentially then increases his chance of winning, because it opens up his field of rhetorical play. “Psychology is the only necessary skill for running for president,” writes Adams, adding: “Trump knows psychology.”

Within that context, here is what Candidate Trump is doing to win campaign hearts and minds, according to Scott Adams:

1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.

“If you see voters as rational you’ll be a terrible politician,” Adams writes on his blog. “People are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated. But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence.”

2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an emotional level.

“The evidence is that Trump completely ignores reality and rational thinking in favor of emotional appeal,” Adams writes. “Sure, much of what Trump says makes sense to his supporters, but I assure you that is coincidence. Trump says whatever gets him the result he wants. He understands humans as 90-percent irrational and acts accordingly.”

Adams adds: “People vote based on emotion. Period.”

3. By running on emotion, facts don’t matter.

“While his opponents are losing sleep trying to memorize the names of foreign leaders – in case someone asks – Trump knows that is a waste of time … ,” Adams writes. “There are plenty of important facts Trump does not know. But the reason he doesn’t know those facts is – in part – because he knows facts don’t matter. They never have and they never will. So he ignores them.

“Right in front of you.”

And stating numbers that might not quite be facts nevertheless can anchor those numbers, and facts, in your mind.

4. If facts don’t matter, you can’t really be “wrong.”

Trump “doesn’t apologize or correct himself. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump looks stupid, evil, and maybe crazy,” Adams writes. “If you understand persuasion, Trump is pitch-perfect most of the time. He ignores unnecessary rational thought and objective data and incessantly hammers on what matters (emotions).”

“Did Trump’s involvement in the birther thing confuse you?” Adams goes on to ask. “Were you wondering how Trump could believe Obama was not a citizen? The answer is that Trump never believed anything about Obama’s place of birth. The facts were irrelevant, so he ignored them while finding a place in the hearts of conservatives. For later.

“This is later. He plans ahead.”

5. With fewer facts in play, it’s easier to bend reality.

Steve Jobs famously aimed to create “reality distortion fields” to meet his needs and achieve his ends. Trump employs similar techniques, and apparently can be similarly thin-skinned when his “reality” is challenged. “The Master Persuader will warp reality until he gets what he wants,” writes Adams, noting that Trump is “halfway done” already.

(Among the persuasive techniques that Trump uses to help bend reality, Adams says, are repetition of phrases; “thinking past the sale” so the initial part of his premise is stated as a given; and knowing the appeal of the simplest answer, which relates to the concept of Occam’s razor.)

6. To bend reality, Trump is a master of identity politics — and identity is the strongest persuader.

“Do you think it is a coincidence that Trump called Megyn Kelly a bimbo and then she got a non-bimbo haircut that is … well, Trumpian?” Adams writes. “It doesn’t look like a coincidence to this trained persuader.”

One way to achieve this is by deploying “linguistic kill shots” that land true, and alter perception through two ways.

“The best Trump linguistic kill shots,” Adams writes,”have the following qualities: 1. Fresh word that is not generally used in politics; 2. Relates to the physicality of the subject (so you are always reminded).”

Writes Adams: “Identity is always the strongest level of persuasion. The only way to beat it is with dirty tricks or a stronger identity play. … [And] Trump is well on his way to owning the identities of American, Alpha Males, and Women Who Like Alpha Males. Clinton is well on her way to owning the identities of angry women, beta males, immigrants, and disenfranchised minorities.

“If this were poker, which hand looks stronger to you for a national election?”

[Libertas]

This didn't need its own thread, but this high-rated comment was

Quote:

What?! The Donald attracts alpha males while Hillary attracts angry women. Really?!!! Going back to sexist basics, Mr. Cavna? Strong women are called alpha females not angry females. I noticed you didn't call alpha males, angry men; shame on you Mr Cavena, shame, shame, shame.!

Someone's projecting. All of the alpha, temperate, sophisticated men I know support Trump.

[RexImperator]

But... there are more "betas" than "alphas".

[Liberty Sea]

I disagree with Scott Adams, who thinks that facts don't matter and policies don't matter, that the master persuader can warp reality however he likes. He's making Trump out to be a fact-distorting emotion-manipulator, fitting in his nihilistic view of human beings as "moist robots", whose reason is nothing more than an illusion. While I do agree that most people are sub-rational most of the time, I completely reject this reason nihilism. Adams sure has great insights but his autistic introversion prevents him from fully understanding Trump. Adams managed to pick up the corpse of Trump's operation but failed to capture its soul. He also rationalizes away his errors.

My position: Persuasion techniques and policies both matter.
Trump, so to speak, does not ignore facts. He employs 'truthful hyperbole'. It's not mere 'thinking past the sale' or 'anchoring'. His exaggeration always has a kernel of truth. In fact I would argue that a large part of Trump's appeal is that his platform is so fact-based, so connected the with the reality ordinary (non-elite, non-hack) people live in.

So here is Trump's advice to Adams: "You can’t con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don’t deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on." - The Art of the Deal.

That is why 'master persuader" Obama is so hated in this country, so many of his ex-voters are disillusioned with him.

Adams also neglects to address the reason most people cite for liking Trump: his being 'the tell-it-like-it-is candidate', 'the candidate who is not afraid to speak his mind', 'the unfiltered candidate',... The general populace, whether liking or disliking him, consider him an unfiltered straight-talker who speaks what's on his mind. When they hate him they hate what (they think) is on his mind. Those who consider him a frequent liar, a con artist are few and far between, at any rate a minority among his haters. Now of course Trump does not always speak his mind, but he successfully created the impression that he does - that's his central brand. Adams, to be sure, has never explained why this is so. Simplicity and identity-mongering don't suffice.

[Blaster]

(03-27-2016 09:21 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

But... there are more "betas" than "alphas".

I think Adams was being somewhat broad with his definition of alpha. I'd say there's masculine betas who are simply content with their social standing and un-masculine betas who tend to be the deluded, passive-aggressive progressive types. Adams probably counts "masculine betas" as alphas for the sake of simple language.

[Liberty Sea]

(03-27-2016 11:27 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 09:21 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

But... there are more "betas" than "alphas".

I think Adams was being somewhat broad with his definition of alpha. I'd say there's masculine betas who are simply content with their social standing and un-masculine betas who tend to be the deluded, passive-aggressive progressive types. Adams probably counts "masculine betas" as alphas for the sake of simple language.

Scott Adams's definition of Alpha:
Summary:

Quote:

To keep things simple, let’s say an alpha is a personality who wants (and often expects) to be in charge of every situation. If you would enjoy the job of CEO, for example, despite the stress and hours, you are probably an alpha.

Elaboration:

Quote:

Alpha seems to be one of those qualities you know when you see it. Let’s call it a natural leadership impulse, or ambition.

Each of us will define alpha and beta differently because there is a subjective element to it. I asked an alpha friend to define what an alpha male was in her view. She went on to describe a servant role, and by that I mean she defined her perfect alpha male partner based on the services he could provide to her – earning money, fixing things, doing housework, and protecting her from harm. She wanted him to “take the lead” on things such as planning vacations, but obviously he had to plan only things she wanted.

Now you know why I label my friend an alpha. She can’t even imagine a life where she isn’t at least defining the option set. Nor should she. And that’s my point.

[hydrogonian]

Well, of course it took a populist candidate for the Left to do an article on their own tactics for duration of the modern past.

[Sherman]

That article is leftist bullshit propaganda. They are running the narrative that Trump is appealing to something unintelligent and emotional. But Trump is the only candidate who has actually brought up the most important issues, i.e., the open border and trade policies that favor the globalists at the expense of everyone else. If it wasn't for Trump, the TPP would never have been mentioned in the campaign. These things are not suppose to be talked about. Trump wins on the substance. Trump wins on the issues. Trump wins on the facts.

[Hades]

^All valid criticism of scott Adams but I think you're in denial on the reason and rationality front.

Principled conservatives are some of the least rational voters out there. I can accept that losers, bleeding hearts, and welfare queens vote liberal. The state providing free shit is in their best interests. The state propping up feel good ideology is in best interests. Conservatives will often vote for candidates irrespective of policy if they feel the candidate shares their moral and religious values. Voting for self interest is very rational, voting for values is retarded.

[Libertas]

Scott is mostly right, but what he hasn't talked about so much and what that article doesn't talk about are offers. When we're talking about stuff like the TPP, that's an offer.

Objections to specific policies may be rational or irrational. Making an offer to what people want, whether for rational or irrational purposes, is the key. Trump does that. He made an offer to where the market was headed.

The market is growing tired of globalism, for reasons rational or not.

Trump's sales skills that Scott talks about pull the market toward knowing about and taking the offer.

[Blaster]

(03-27-2016 11:33 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 11:27 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 09:21 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

But... there are more "betas" than "alphas".

I think Adams was being somewhat broad with his definition of alpha. I'd say there's masculine betas who are simply content with their social standing and un-masculine betas who tend to be the deluded, passive-aggressive progressive types. Adams probably counts "masculine betas" as alphas for the sake of simple language.

Scott Adams's definition of Alpha:
Summary:

Quote:

To keep things simple, let’s say an alpha is a personality who wants (and often expects) to be in charge of every situation. If you would enjoy the job of CEO, for example, despite the stress and hours, you are probably an alpha.

In that case I disagree with Adams' prediction. I don't think actually being an alpha will make any difference at all when it comes to supporting or not supporting Trump. Most alphas probably do not identify with being alpha in the way that would make them particularly likely to vote for a candidate just for also being alpha. Soros is probably alpha.

I predict any male who can recognize and appreciate alpha leadership qualities will find Trump more appealing. That does not require actually being alpha.

Quote:

Elaboration:

Quote:

Alpha seems to be one of those qualities you know when you see it. Let’s call it a natural leadership impulse, or ambition.

Each of us will define alpha and beta differently because there is a subjective element to it. I asked an alpha friend to define what an alpha male was in her view. She went on to describe a servant role, and by that I mean she defined her perfect alpha male partner based on the services he could provide to her – earning money, fixing things, doing housework, and protecting her from harm. She wanted him to “take the lead” on things such as planning vacations, but obviously he had to plan only things she wanted.

Now you know why I label my friend an alpha. She can’t even imagine a life where she isn’t at least defining the option set. Nor should she. And that’s my point.

That's a very poor definition and kind of odd Adams makes this mistake. A true alpha will lead the woman and afterwards, she'll claim that's what she wanted all along. Yes, it's important for the alpha leader to mostly lead in the direction she wants to go, but ultimately he makes the decisions and persuades her to want what he wants. That's alpha.

Also, Alpha is not subjective. It's context-sensitive but not subjective. It's based entirely on measurable social dominance and simply having an entitled world view is not enough to be alpha.

[Liberty Sea]

(03-27-2016 01:18 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

Scott is mostly right, but what he hasn't talked about so much and what that article doesn't talk about are offers. When we're talking about stuff like the TPP, that's an offer.

Objections to specific policies may be rational or irrational. Making an offer to what people want, whether for rational or irrational purposes, is the key. Trump does that. He made an offer to where the market was headed.

The market is growing tired of globalism, for reasons rational or not.

Trump's sales skills that Scott talks about pull the market toward knowing about and taking the offer.

To be fair, Scott Adams is right that details don't matter, specifics don't matter, as far as persuasion/campaigning is concerned. But he goes from "policy details don't matter" to "policies don't matter". That's where he goes off the rail. General policies direction matter. Signature positions matter. Core platform matters. It's part of your brand. Policy proposals as offers matter, as a matter of persuasion.

People are not always persuaded to vote for Trump due to his personality or personal qualities alone. They are not usually persuaded to adopt a position that he proposes. They had previously adopted that position (whether due to rational consideration or not), and he convinced them that he's the best one to enact such position. That's more often the case than not, so far. He also adopt positions that would optimally resonate with the general populace, the silent majority, so to speak. His policies have everything to do with American identity.

[Blaster]

(03-27-2016 07:42 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

(03-27-2016 01:18 PM)Libertas Wrote:  

Scott is mostly right, but what he hasn't talked about so much and what that article doesn't talk about are offers. When we're talking about stuff like the TPP, that's an offer.

Objections to specific policies may be rational or irrational. Making an offer to what people want, whether for rational or irrational purposes, is the key. Trump does that. He made an offer to where the market was headed.

The market is growing tired of globalism, for reasons rational or not.

Trump's sales skills that Scott talks about pull the market toward knowing about and taking the offer.

To be fair, Scott Adams is right that details don't matter, specifics don't matter, as far as persuasion/campaigning is concerned. But he goes from "policy details don't matter" to "policies don't matter". That's where he is off the rail. General policies direction matter. Essential platform matters. It's part of your brand. Policy proposals as offers matter, as a matter of persuasion.

People are not always persuaded to vote for Trump due to his personality or personal qualities alone. They are not usually persuaded to adopt a position that he proposes. They had previously adopted that position (whether due to rational consideration or not), and he convinced them that he's the best one to enact such position. That's more often the case than not, so far.

Agreed. This part in particular:

Quote:

The Manhattan mogul is so deft at the powers of persuasion, Adams believes, that the candidate could have run as a Democrat and, by picking different hot-button issues, still won this presidency. In other words: Trump is such a master linguistic strategist that he could have turned the political chessboard around and still embarrassed the field.

This isn't true because (a) there isn't a hot-button issue on the democrat side as clear and important as "secure the border" (b) his guerrilla media tactics work so well because of PC culture, which is heavily progressive.

[Norset]

Great to see Scott Adam's analysis being debunked. I believe he is projecting his own poor personal life decisions and struggling internally: "I couldn't help myself! I am a moist robot!" - He married and got divorced from a single mom. He does not have his own kids. He has no character, no identity - he himself embodies the soulless corporations that his comics (which are very good) mocks mercilessly. Too much exposure to the diseased?

Part of him *wants* to embrace the identity that Trump stands for, but doing so 100% would mean having to face what is *own* identify consists of.

[Norset]

delete - was going to correct a spelling mistake but replied instead.

[Libertas]

(03-27-2016 07:42 PM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  

To be fair, Scott Adams is right that details don't matter, specifics don't matter, as far as persuasion/campaigning is concerned. But he goes from "policy details don't matter" to "policies don't matter". That's where he goes off the rail. General policies direction matter. Signature positions matter. Core platform matters. It's part of your brand. Policy proposals as offers matter, as a matter of persuasion.

People are not always persuaded to vote for Trump due to his personality or personal qualities alone. They are not usually persuaded to adopt a position that he proposes. They had previously adopted that position (whether due to rational consideration or not), and he convinced them that he's the best one to enact such position. That's more often the case than not, so far. He also adopt positions that would optimally resonate with the general populace, the silent majority, so to speak. His policies have everything to do with American identity.

This is what I was essentially saying and have written about at length elsewhere.

Scott hasn't entirely connected the dots.

Core policy = offer to a market.

Persuasion won't work if no one wants the product being offered to begin with. Much like no amount of game will work on girls that aren't sexually available.

Find where the market is, make the offer. Then persuasion works from there.

[Suits]

Scott Adams, proving his genius again.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Seems like a long-winded way to say "Trump is doing what all the politicians do only he's doing it ten times better."

To wit: Players gonna play. Haters gonna hate.

[Beyond Borders]

I like some of the stuff Adams writes a lot. But I was just saying to someone the other day that the more I read his him the more I realize he's guilty of a lot of mental masturbation; I suspect he would probably admit this too, given his trend towards confessing fallibility to the point of self-depracation.

Not that his points don't carry some validity but he has a tendency to oversimplify and put too much stock in his own logical leaps. It's just an extension of his "fail to win" life philosophy, I'd say. He's okay with being wrong and therefore rarely tempers his assertions.

[BortimusPrime]

I suspect Scott Adams is a Trump supporter, the reason he keeps prefacing everything by saying he personally doesn't support Trump and is merely interested in him is one of his persuasion tactics. He knows a lot of people irrationally hate Trump and will immediately tune out if they think someone is actually advocating for Trump, but if he frames it as a Trump analysis, he can slip in Trump's messages and plant them in liberal readers.

Considering the dude was hit by a feminist witch-hunt before it was cool, I'd guess his true beliefs are fairly red-pill.

[Beyond Borders]

^ I agree he's probably a supporter as well.

[Patriarch]

I still think it's ridiculous that guys like Scott Adams have to be halfway in the closet about supporting the same ideas Trump does, yet would face career suicide if they took a NEUTRAL stance on topics like tranny rights and radical Islam.

[Quintus Curtius]

I've gone for a while without making any comment or expressing any opinion on Trump.

He's certainly the most exciting candidate I've seen in my lifetime. He has already accomplished some very impressive feats:

1. He's basically thrown the old-guard Republican establishment into chaos and confusion.

2. He's redefined how campaigns will be run from now on. Make no mistake: Trump has brought the old-fashioned, 19th century Jacksonian, barroom brawl brand of American politics back into vogue. He rips into his opponents with no holds barred, and the people love it.

3. He's galvanized the populace in a way that none of the other candidates have.

Can he win the presidency? Yes, he can. But it is going to be an uphill battle. I don't know if I agree with Scott Adams's "landslide" prediction.

The establishment, media, and a good part of the public is scared shitless of Trump, and they're going to come at him with everything they have. It is going to get nasty. Very nasty.

But he has a very good chance of winning. There is real, palpable rage out there. People are marginalized, frustrated, and feel like they're losing ground every year. No one is helping them, and no one in Washington cares. Trump is tapping into that legitimate anger.

But I've always been more interested in character, leadership, and mens' responses to adversity, than I have been with political elections.

To me, the better question is this: assuming Trump wins, will he be able to lead? Will he be able to work with others, to control his irascible temper, to exercise sound judgment, to respond effectively to crises?

No one really knows. He has never held any kind of political office. Running large corporations may be useful, but it is different from handling the responsibilities of elected office.

Trump does have character flaws, despite all his brilliance in electioneering. He is vain, hypersensitive, intemperate, and appears to be even more of a "delegator" of responsibility than Reagan was. He can be petty and vindictive towards those who challenge him. It remains to be seen whether Trump will be able to make the transition from tycoon to statesman.

Will his flaws be his undoing? We don't know. On the positive side, he does have tremendous willpower. He might be able to control his passions, and discipline himself for an entirely new set of responsibilities.

People have underestimated him greatly in the past. For a long time, he was viewed as a clown, a buffoon, and a con artists. No more.

So this, to me, will be the most interesting thing in the Trump saga: what will his character prove itself to be?

It is the stuff that great dramas are made of. I am glad I am going to see this drama played out in my lifetime.

[Beyond Borders]

I haven't been paying much attention and I don't intend to start, but the comment about him ripping into opponents reminds me of something. The first time I recognized that Trump was a sleeping giant and not who who I'd assumed, and that he might even make a go for the presidency at some point, was when he was when he appeared on Comedy Central's Roast series. Anyone else catch that episode?

[Guitarman]

Scott Adams is only partly right. Trump is a master persuader able to tap into people's emotions. BUT, his policies and ideas on how to save the USA are all spot on. There is a lot of substance behind the bluster.

And, being a master persuader will pay dividends when the time comes that Trump will do deals with Putin, China, Iran and the EU for example. His almost Jedi level persuasion will help with world leaders too.