‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
 
   
 

#87- Triggered A Conversation with Scott Adams

 
Spud Boy
 
Avatar
 
 
Spud Boy
Total Posts:  8
Joined  25-04-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:17
 

This forum reads like the same echo chamber of people who hated Trump from the beginning. The type of people who referred to the 17 republican candidates as a “clown car”, even though the majority of those candidates were better qualified than either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. I get it. You’re all Democrats and leftists who would never vote Republican in a million years.

You all decry Trump as being immoral and dishonest. Let me ask you this: Was it immoral and/or dishonest for Obama to say “..if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, period.”? This was an outright lie that actually mattered.

Was it immoral and/or dishonest for Bill Clinton to have an affair with an intern in the oval office?

Let’s not pretend that Donald Trump is the first president to lie and or do things of questionable moral character.

 

 
Reaction
 
Avatar
 
 
Reaction
Total Posts:  3
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:18
 

@44
Hm, doesn’t convince me yet. I mean, Hillary wasn’t exactly an unknown, underreported, underfunded person, and I would doubt she got less free air time than Trump did (can’t verify, not a US citizien and don’t follow your media). So what’s left is then d-baggery. And I’m not sure that that particular thing gets you elected president against all the previously mentioned forces.

 
Ben45234789341
 
Avatar
 
 
Ben45234789341
Total Posts:  8
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:18
 

Trump is apparently such an amazing persuader that what he means by what he says is not immediately apparent to half the country and he needs tools like Adams to translate.

 
gustafgrapple
 
Avatar
 
 
gustafgrapple
Total Posts:  1
Joined  02-01-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:22
 

I found it interesting that this guy put so much stock in ‘cognitive dissonance’ and the use of analogies as being negative, but then proceeded to to do exactly that (two screens?). There is no way, it seems, that Trump would ever cross the line in this guy’s very methodical mind into being a bad president. There are plenty of sociopaths who clearly describe their motives and reasons for attaining their sociopathic goals. He seems to be cut from this sociopathic cloth. I am also pretty sick of the ‘who cares, we’ve done it too, meme use by both the far left and right for why it’s okay for Russia to hack our elections. If Russia bombed us, would these people say that it’s okay to not retaliate since we have bombed people too?  It sucks that Noam Chomsky and Fox News can agree on this idiotic response. This is the perfect example of where the political spectrum bends back upon itself to meet somewhere in the insane fringe.

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  377
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:24
 

Note re the echo chamber: Count up how many of the last 60-70 posts (or go user-by-user) are pro or neutral Trump. Now idk what the threshold is till you can say echo chamber, but it’s something worth thinking about.

 
RedSeed
 
Avatar
 
 
RedSeed
Total Posts:  48
Joined  24-01-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:36
 
Igawa - 19 July 2017 01:24 PM

Note re the echo chamber: Count up how many of the last 60-70 posts (or go user-by-user) are pro or neutral Trump. Now idk what the threshold is till you can say echo chamber, but it’s something worth thinking about.

Consensus isn’t a bad thing if the evidence is convincing.

 
Horkthane
 
Avatar
 
 
Horkthane
Total Posts:  10
Joined  02-11-2016
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:36
 

I thought Scott was quite clear that analogies are useful for helping to explain a concept, but useless to prove anything or persuade anyone.  So when he employs his two screens analogy to demonstrate this weird bifurcation of how D’s and R’s are perceiving base reality, it’s useful to illustrate the new concept.

But if you don’t think that is what’s going on, it’s not going to convince you.

That’s why every time Sam lobbed another analogy “Imagine if this were anyone else…” to convince Scott that Trump’s behavior is obviously insane on the face of it, it doesn’t work the same.  Sam and Scott agreed at the beginning that much of Trump’s behavior is abnormal.  He has a strained relationship with the truth.  He’s blustery and comes on way too strong.  His positions are mercurial, etc.  These are things Sam and Scott already agree on.  No amount of analogizing will make this any more clear to Scott.  He knows.  He just has already come to a different conclusion about the behavior, that he and Sam agreed was evident, than Sam does.

Divorced from the context of Trump, if I were explaining how, let’s say Bitcoin works to you.  And I analogized the blockchain to an immutable paper ledger.  You get it.  But you still don’t see why that gives bitcoin any value.  I can say “Yeah, but it’s just like any other fiat currency”.  And once again, a hit and miss.  You don’t think that comparison is valid.  If you’ve already decided something, no amount of analogizing will change your mind.  You’ll most likely just decide the analogy is invalid.

 
deacon_blus
 
Avatar
 
 
deacon_blus
Total Posts:  3
Joined  06-06-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:37
 

Mostly I think this was just Scott Adams, as master persuader, trying to get some of his speaking gigs back by centering the discussion on tactics and glossing over whether he agrees with any of the actual reality and substance of Trump’s articulated position.

Plenty of SA fans will counter that I’m clearly experiencing CD - the tell would be that I pretend to know what is in SA’s head.

On the other hand, very much like SA in this entire discussion: if SA gets more speaking gigs in the future I can delight in my prediction. Should he remain rather shunned, I can simply point out that his tactic didn’t work. Which seems to be indistinguishable from SA’s position on Trump, at least as he articulated it on the podcast.

 
Ben45234789341
 
Avatar
 
 
Ben45234789341
Total Posts:  8
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:42
 
Igawa - 19 July 2017 01:24 PM

Note re the echo chamber: Count up how many of the last 60-70 posts (or go user-by-user) are pro or neutral Trump. Now idk what the threshold is till you can say echo chamber, but it’s something worth thinking about.

For it be an echo chamber, you have to demonstrate that there is something blocking the pro-Trump information from getting in. Considering this is a thread discussing an show with a pro-Trump guest, you’ve got a tough case to make.

 
Ben45234789341
 
Avatar
 
 
Ben45234789341
Total Posts:  8
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:43
 
Spud Boy - 19 July 2017 01:17 PM

This forum reads like the same echo chamber of people who hated Trump from the beginning. The type of people who referred to the 17 republican candidates as a “clown car”, even though the majority of those candidates were better qualified than either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. I get it. You’re all Democrats and leftists who would never vote Republican in a million years.

You all decry Trump as being immoral and dishonest. Let me ask you this: Was it immoral and/or dishonest for Obama to say “..if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, period.”? This was an outright lie that actually mattered.

Was it immoral and/or dishonest for Bill Clinton to have an affair with an intern in the oval office?

Let’s not pretend that Donald Trump is the first president to lie and or do things of questionable moral character.

 

Hey look, it’s a strawman!

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  377
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 13:45
 
Ben45234789341 - 19 July 2017 01:42 PM
Igawa - 19 July 2017 01:24 PM

Note re the echo chamber: Count up how many of the last 60-70 posts (or go user-by-user) are pro or neutral Trump. Now idk what the threshold is till you can say echo chamber, but it’s something worth thinking about.

For it be an echo chamber, you have to demonstrate that there is something blocking the pro-Trump information from getting in. Considering this is a thread discussing an show with a pro-Trump guest, you’ve got a tough case to make.

You have a good point. There is no explicit (or very strong implicit) barrier I’ve seen so far, so it’s not an echo chamber.

 
cbshultz
 
Avatar
 
 
cbshultz
Total Posts:  1
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 14:19
 

Sam, its tough to keep up, but its only 4 agencies not 17 on Russia and 97% consensus is bogus.

Electric vehicles…how about the recent study that shows that it takes the equivalent of 8 years of regular combustion engine pollution to make the battery in a Tesla!

[ Edited: 19 July 2017 14:33 by cbshultz]
 
claybonnyman
 
Avatar
 
 
claybonnyman
Total Posts:  8
Joined  07-03-2016
 
 
 
19 July 2017 14:38
 

Adams is clearly very intelligent, and demonstrably well-spoken. He has an impressive grasp of the information surrounding “persuasive” communication.

All that said, it’s impossible not to see how he takes every criticism of Trump and — talk about “filtering” — defends it in the most charitable possible terms; everything that Trump does or says, in other words, is presented almost as the work of a genius. But the truth is, Adams, no less than Harris (whom he criticizes for exactly this) is pretending that he knows what goes on in Trump’s mind.

I’m very glad I listened to the podcast. I think Adams is well worth listening to. But it’s also worth applying Occam’s Razor here: Isn’t it just possible that the president is not some uber-genius, and in fact is the incompetent, impulsive, know-nothing he appears to be?

 
4Lights
 
Avatar
 
 
4Lights
Total Posts:  10
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 14:38
 

Pretty exhausting to listen to.  Dilbert is a great comic, but by the time Scott finishes with his wait-a-minutes and weasel questions and “feelings filters,” he comes off essentially as a arguer of attrition who will continue to nibble at your ankles until you sigh and concede that Trump is magic.

There is a massive asymmetry in how he niggles Sam down on every little nuanced point, yet extend Trump these giant leaps of faith for Svengali-like genius.  He doesn’t just move the goalposts once and a while; it seems his goalposts are mounted on roller skates.

I would take enormous exception to some of his blithe assumptions, such as the notion that Trump Jr.‘s Russia meeting “turned out to be trivial.”

 
Spud Boy
 
Avatar
 
 
Spud Boy
Total Posts:  8
Joined  25-04-2017
 
 
 
19 July 2017 14:40
 
Ben45234789341 - 19 July 2017 01:43 PM
Spud Boy - 19 July 2017 01:17 PM

This forum reads like the same echo chamber of people who hated Trump from the beginning. The type of people who referred to the 17 republican candidates as a “clown car”, even though the majority of those candidates were better qualified than either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. I get it. You’re all Democrats and leftists who would never vote Republican in a million years.

You all decry Trump as being immoral and dishonest. Let me ask you this: Was it immoral and/or dishonest for Obama to say “..if you like your health care plan, you can keep it, period.”? This was an outright lie that actually mattered.

Was it immoral and/or dishonest for Bill Clinton to have an affair with an intern in the oval office?

Let’s not pretend that Donald Trump is the first president to lie and or do things of questionable moral character.

 

Hey look, it’s a strawman!

Do you even know what a “straw man” is?

Let me help you: It’s stating an incorrect version of your opponent’s position, and then attacking the incorrect position. Are you denying that Obama said that, or that Bill Clinton had an affair?

 
‹ First  < 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›