Quantcast

Episode 128: Why Trump Derangement Syndrome is so Strong

Topics: 

  • The enemy press
  • Delusions of the winning team vs. the losing team
  • College admission race requirement rules
  • The Scott Adams college course curriculum

 

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

 

Episode 111: (Part 1of2) Analogies are Destroying the Country

Topics: 

  • NO people in this discussion want to separate kids from parents
    • Short-term solutions INCREASE the long-term problem
    • Short-term solutions INCREASE the number of kids in this situation over time
    • Half the country believes other half is okay with child abuse
  • Analogies aren’t thinking
  • When kids are stressed…
    • Our human natural reaction is to care and help them
    • That natural reaction inhibits our ability to think objectively and long-term
  • Alan Dershowitz observation
    • Death camp analogy is a form of holocaust denial
  • All laws and penalties are deterrents

 

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

 

Episode 106: The Children in Cages

Topics: 

  • Kids in cages, bad…and nobody has a viable alternative?
    • Fraudulent, but deeply effective persuasion
    • Lacks factual accuracy
    • Untrue, misleading
    • Out of context
    • Could be solved tomorrow
    • Why is it so effective?  Cause facts don’t matter
  • Cognitive dissonance example: anti-Trump laundry lists
    • Their initial gigantic fears about President Trump didn’t manifest
    • But they’re the “smart ones” in the conversation
    • So new fears are needed to replace the faded ones
    • If you can’t find a sufficiently big fear, you need lots of little ones
  • George Lakoff’s dilemma
    • Highly qualified cognitive expert
    • He sees and understands that…
    • President Trump is using skill and experience consistently
    • But 99% of his side believe it’s just luck
    • George’s problem?  Facts don’t matter

 

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

Find my WhenHub Interface app here.

Episode 85: The Party of Hate

Topics:

  • Amy Siskind dust up on Twitter today
  • Becoming the thing you hate
  • Mental health of anti-Trumpers is going to be in serious jeopardy
  • Expect insane levels of irrationality if NK denuclearizes.
  • Attacks from the left will focus on things that can’t be seen or measured
  • Levels of hatred will be off the charts
  • Amy lives in a world where nothing is going right
  • Where does the chain of Presidential cause and effect end?
  • Elon Musk dust up on Twitter

 

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

For persuasion-related content in book form, see my bestselling book, Win Bigly.

Episode 83: “Word Salad” tell for Cognitive Dissonance on CNN Today

Topics:

  • Remember: The “news” has an agenda and is part of the political process
  • Examples of “word salad” on CNN’s Brian Selter’s show today
  • President Trump has raised our awareness; we now know to question the “news”

 

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

For persuasion-related content in book form, see my bestselling book, Win Bigly.

Episode 81: How to Spot Cognitive Dissonance

Topics:

  • Whiteboard discussion
  • The clues and tells for spotting cognitive dissonance
  • Cognitive dissonance affects EVERYBODY
  • Yes…even you
  • You can’t see it in yourself, easier to spot in others
  • Are they the ones in cognitive dissonance, or is it you?
  • Trigger examples

 

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

For persuasion-related content in book form, see my bestselling book, Win Bigly.

Episode 76: SPYGATE, Iran and MS-13

Topics:

  • 4 things we know about SPYGATE
  • “Word salad” is a sign of cognitive dissonance
  • People are naturally primed to believe their own side
  • Keep an open mind about things…cause they might be cognitive dissonance
  • Cognitive scientists are experts at “brainwashing”
  • Is it a legal defense to say brainwashed by cognitive scientists?
  • Iran considering law to prevent financing terrorism
  • President Trump ALWAYS “shakes the box” looking for solutions
  • What is the trigger for Middle East issues, lack of knowledge or cognitive dissonance?
  • Starbucks corporate decision regarding restrooms and their facilities

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

For persuasion-related content in book form, see my bestselling book, Win Bigly.

Episode 71: How to Spot Cognitive Dissonance in the Media

Topics:

  • Whiteboard discussion – Pattern of Behavior
  • The “so” tell combined with an absurd absolute
  • Milton Erickson shoe on table example
  • Word salad
  • Triggers for cognitive dissonance
  • Examining Trump “animals” comment
  • “Fits a pattern” fallacy
  • Whack-a-mole persuasion
  • Primed by our preferences
  • Occam’s razor
  • Confirmation bias
  • 20 year rule
  • Ego as a tool that doesn’t control you

I fund my Periscopes and podcasts via audience micro-donations on Patreon. I prefer this method over accepting advertisements or working for a “boss” somewhere because it keeps my voice independent. No one owns me, and that is rare. I’m trying in my own way to make the world a better place, and your contributions help me stay inspired to do that.

See all of my Periscope videos here.

For persuasion-related content in book form, see my bestselling book, Win Bigly.

Big Red Flag for Cognitive Dissonance

When I see an obvious case of cognitive dissonance in the news, I like to point it out so you can see reality through what I call the Persuasion Filter. Today’s example comes from an article in SLATE about climate change.

The author, Tim Requarth, correctly points out that facts and logic have limited value in changing anyone’s mind about climate science, or anything else. He speaks from experience because he teaches workshops on how to better communicate science. I like this guy. He’s on the right path.

But the thing that got my attention was this bit from the article:

“Kahan found that increased scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science thought climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it seemed, increased polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist: He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.”

Notice how the author slips in his unsupported interpretation of the data: Greater knowledge about science causes more polarization.

Well, maybe. That’s a reasonable hypothesis, but it seems incomplete. Here’s another hypothesis that fits the same observed data: The people who know the most about science don’t think complex climate prediction models are credible science, and they are right.

For my purposes today, we don’t need to know which hypothesis is correct. Maybe knowledge does nothing but make you more confident that your “side” is right. But maybe the people with the most knowledge on the topic of science are – wait for it – good at judging the validity of science in any particular area.

Keep in mind that the entire public argument in favor of climate change alarmism is that the people who know the most (climate scientists) are largely on the same page. But that conflicts with the idea that the conservative-leaning citizens who know the most about science don’t find their ideas entirely credible – at least in terms of the prediction models.

And what would historians say about this situation? I think they would say that the people who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it. (Because that’s what they always say.) In my opinion, the conservatives who know the most about science are looking at it from an historical perspective, and they see a pattern here: Complicated prediction models rarely work.

That’s how I see it.

In order to change my mind on climate science, you would need to show me that in this one special case, history is not repeating. You’d have to show me that this one time in history is when complicated prediction models got it right. And I’m not sure that argument can be made, even if true.

I would like to add one more hypothesis to the SLATE article. Let’s consider the possibility that the only reason any non-scientist believes climate change is a danger to civilization is because of fear persuasion, not because of facts or logic, and not because of a citizen-level understanding of science. If you fear the world will become uninhabitable in your lifetime, you’re more likely to embrace the experts who say they know what is wrong and they know how to stop it.

Climate scientists probably believe they have convinced about half of the public to their side using their graphs and logic and facts. That’s not the case. They convinced half the public by using fear persuasion disguised as facts and logic. And it probably worked best with the people who have the least knowledge of how often complicated prediction models have failed in the past.

For the purpose of this blog post, you don’t need to know who is right and who is wrong about climate science. My point today is that cognitive dissonance is preventing scientists from seeing what is actually happening here with their messaging. Scientists believe their facts and logic convinced all the smart people to their side already, so now they need a new strategy for the dumb ones. A different version of reality, as seen through the Persuasion Filter, is that citizens who don’t understand history are doomed to believe whatever the experts tell them. Half the country has been persuaded to climate alarmism by fear, not an understanding of the issue. At the same time, those who know the most about both history and science realize that complex climate models are generally not credible, so they are not persuaded by fear.

I remind new readers of this blog that I’m not a climate science denier. The consensus of climate scientists might be totally right, but I have no practical way to know. My point here, and in past posts, is that you can’t sell a truth by packaging it to look exactly like a huge lie. And those complicated climate prediction models look exactly like lies we have seen before, albeit in unrelated fields. 

Facebook Official Page: fb.me/ScottAdamsOfficial

You might enjoy reading my book because ice is melting wherever it is warm enough.

I’m also on…

Twitter (includes Periscope): @scottadamssays​

YouTube: At this link.

Instagram: ScottAdams925

Two More Movies on One Screen

Recently, one of my millions of critics left a message on social media about my writings on the topic of climate science. I pasted the critic’s comment below, as well as a response from a third party who explains to her that she is watching the wrong movie.

I present the exchange here as an example of how two people can look at the same screen and see completely different movies.

Your first reaction might be along the lines of thinking my critic is nuts, or has low reading comprehension. But neither is likely to be the case. The critic is (I assume) totally normal. This sort of hallucination happens to all of us on a regular basis. But we can only see it clearly when it happens to others. 

Don’t be smug that you can clearly see how deluded the critic is. The point is not about this one person. The point is that sometimes this one person is you. And me. No one is exempt. It’s just easier to see the phenomenon in others.

Here is the exchange.

Critic: 

“First of all, anyone who writes an article on climate science that starts it with “I don’t know much about science and even less about climate science” should not be taken seriously.

But then it is very much in vogue these days to flaunt your ignorance while railing against anyone who takes facts, science, and education seriously. They are just a bunch of elitists. His flippant, thinly reasoned but cutesy questions is one way to flaunt it I guess. But that does not a scientist make. He is the trump of scientists to use your analogy.”

Response from Chris Fusco:

“His article is about persuasion, not climate science. His blog is all about the science of persuasion and observations of persuasive technique.

“He is the trump of scientists to use your analogy.” He’s not a scientist, and doesn’t say he is. He says at the start “I don’t know much about science, and even less about climate science.” He clearly states “As a public service, and to save the planet, obviously, I will tell you what it would take to convince skeptics that climate science is a problem that we must fix.”

He says “climate scientists are the Hillary Clinton of scientists. They think facts and reason will persuade the public. Even though science knows that doesn’t generally work.” The science of persuasion demonstrates that people are most persuaded not by facts, but by emotions. He has argued in the past based on the science of persuasion that Trump didn’t win because of his command of facts or reason, but rather because of his ability to appeal to emotion to persuade people to vote for him while Hillary mainly tried to appeal to people using facts and reason.

The substance of your comment supports the premise. You were persuaded to comment based on emotion, making only emotional arguments, validating the point. You didn’t address his “thinly reasoned” arguments and refute them on their merits by disproving them using the “facts, science and education” you believe he is missing. Instead you said things like “But then it is very much in vogue these days to flaunt your ignorance while railing against anyone who takes facts, science, and education seriously. ” This is a emotionally persuasive straw man argument. The implication is that he is ignorant and rails against anyone who takes facts, science, and education seriously and you don’t. He never made that argument. His arguments were all about persuasion.

Saying “They are just a bunch of elitists. His flippant, thinly reasoned but cutesy questions is one way to flaunt it I guess,” instead of addressing his actual arguments, ironically, is a flippant, elitist emotional argument used for the purpose of persuasion. Berating someone, like shaming, is an emotionally coercive persuasion technique. It says “You are socially unacceptable to a class of people that are better than you.” The implication is “I’m better than you. You’re not good enough.” It tells the audience, “If you don’t agree with me you’re not good enough.” It’s not imbued with any grace, accountability or responsibility though. The accuser makes no actual effort to improve others. At best they’re just blowing off steam. At worst they are being emotionally coercive, which is a form of violence.

If you sincerely take facts, science and education seriously, you use them to inform and educate others, especially those who may have it wrong. You approach every argument as a dialogue – an opportunity to both teach and learn, testing the limits of your own knowledge and experience and measuring that of others. That’s what a scientist does. That’s what Scott did in his article. Hence, the “cutesy” questions. He doesn’t presume to understand or know it all.

Persuasion is not about informing and educating, it’s about influencing someone else to change THEIR behavior to accomplish YOUR goal. This is an important point. The evidence of one’s goal is in the substance of their technique. If you read the article, he uses logic and reasoning to support his arguments and statements. He was not trying to persuade his audience using emotional arguments, he was trying to educate them on persuasion. He wasn’t attacking scientists, science, climate science, or Hillary. He was critiquing, commenting and informing their ability to persuade.”

Do you think this explanation changed the critic’s mind?

I doubt it. The usual response to this situation is to change the topic.

Again, don’t be smug. You would change the topic too if someone shined a light on your cognitive dissonance. That’s just how it works.

Are you going to a major event sometime soon? You might want to bring the free WhenHub app with you so you can easily find your friends or family.