Scott Adams's Blog, page 250

The Direct Democracy President

To many people – if not most – Donald Trump looks like the type of candidate who would become a “strongman” president, ignoring the advice of experts and the opinion of the people. That’s the persuasion framework that Clinton has created in your mind, probably with the help of the Master Persuader I call Godzilla.

But does the evidence support that view? I see the opposite.

Months ago, when Trump stumbled on his answer about criminal penalties for women who seek illegal abortions, the public went nuts, and Trump immediately corrected his position. That’s direct democracy. Trump heard the opinion of the majority and instantly adopted it.

Consider Trump’s proposal to ban all Muslim immigration. The public felt his position was too extreme, and let him know. Eventually, Trump softened his stance to talk about countries of origin, not religion. The public still wasn’t pleased, so Trump softened again to his current position of “extreme vetting.” That evolution in policy looks like direct democracy to me. The public told Trump what it wanted, and Trump evolved to it.

Likewise, we found out this week that Trump’s plan to deport 11 million Mexicans living in the United States illegally has some wiggle room. Maybe there won’t be so much deporting after all. Because the public doesn’t want it.

Consider also Trump’s public persona. We witness that he is using the teleprompter (as advised) and crafting a friendlier version of himself, which is exactly what the public asked of him.

Recently we’ve seen the question of Clinton’s health and stamina become a big topic on the Internet. Most of the “evidence” is confirmation bias, but the question is probably big enough now that the media has to ask the candidates some questions about their health or they won’t be doing their jobs. The public wants it, the media will comply, and the candidates will be held to their answers. That feels like direct democracy.

If you fear direct democracy, I just gave you several reasons to feel comfortable with it. In olden times, direct democracy could lead to an uninformed mob with pitchforks. When you add ignorance to direct democracy, things won’t go well. But in the age of the Internet, direct democracy forces people to virtue-signal, and we see in my examples above that the crowd moves toward kindness as a group. The crowd rejected penalties for women getting ILLEGAL abortions. It rejected deportation of 11 million ILLEGAL Mexican residents. And so far, the public prefers to accept some terrorist risk in the homeland in order to show kindness to Muslim immigrants who need help.

Do you remember how the Republican Party used to have a lot more conflict with the LGBTQ community? Trump is trying to change that – and succeeding – because the public backs him. 

Direct democracy in pre-Internet days was a bad idea because it gave power to ignorance. But direct democracy in 2016 is more about the public squeezing the evil out of its own leaders. Evil doesn’t like sunlight. It doesn’t like Trump’s unkind immigration plans and it doesn’t like the Clinton Foundation – which just announced it would stop taking foreign donation if Clinton is elected. The public gets what the public demands.

In my opinion, social media has effectively replaced the American system of government that was designed as a republic. In horse-and-buggy times, we elected smart people to go to Washington and make smart decisions on our behalf. The public would learn about the decisions later. But in 2016, the public makes the decisions and the politicians follow along. Social media makes that possible.

Quickly, name a policy idea from a major candidate that is both deeply unpopular with the public and also likely to become a law. I can’t think of one. That isn’t even a thing anymore. If the public doesn’t like it, the leaders can’t do it. Period.

To be fair, some unpopular laws might slip through the system in the short run. But the public will be brutal in those cases, and even the exceptions are likely to be trivial and temporary. 

In my opinion, Trump is likely to be the first direct-democracy president. He’ll do what the public wants and avoid doing what they dislike. The public expects its leaders to try and change their minds about things, but in the end the public will decide and the leaders will follow.

Clinton’s team – presumably with the help of Godzilla – might have persuaded you to fear a Trump presidency. The reality is that the public already controls Trump, and the public’s instinct is toward kindness, and even self-sacrifice, when everyone is watching. 

Social media ensures that everyone is watching.

If you think Clinton would do a better job than Trump as president, you can make a convincing argument for that, given her experience and whatnot. But a Clinton presidency would still have the vestiges of a republic, with decisions being made by special interest groups, and sold to the public with a web of confusion. (Let’s call it a confusopoly system for government.)

A Trump presidency is likely to be the first direct-democracy presidency. If you think a Trump presidency – guided by the kindness of the public – would be extra-dangerous, you have been hypnotized. The evidence strongly suggests the opposite. Our direct democracy has already demonstrated that it prefers kindness to evil.

For the first time in human history, love is in a winning position compared to evil. Take a moment to thank Facebook and Twitter for that. It’s a big deal.

—

Can’t get enough of my Trump opinions?

See my interview with James Taranto of the Wall Street Journa here.

Hear/watch my extended conversation with Stefan Molyneux here.

—

If you like to love, you might love to like my book. But it would be more coincidence than causation.

Trump’s Regrets

By now, most of you know that Trump expressed “regret” at saying things in the past that might have hurt people. Most viewers interpreted this as an apology, of sorts.

Trump? Apologize?

I have some thoughts on this, in no particular order.

3rd Act

This is the so-called 3rd act that I have been predicting for about a year. In movie terms, this is the point where the protagonist encounters a problem that can’t be solved unless he changes something about himself. In a typical movie script, the hero might need to conquer a specific fear, open his heart to love again, or become more open-minded – that sort of change. In our movie, Trump needed to display more human empathy to appear less scary to the public. He has been doing that in speeches and statements all week, but the “regret” speech capped it.

In movie script terms, the timing for Trump’s 3rd act is perfect. The clock was running out on the election cycle and polls said Trump was in a hole that was only getting deeper. Clinton’s Dark Arts team – probably led by the one I call Godzilla – had framed Trump as dangerous and unstable. He was a goner. There was no way out. Game over.

Unless…he…changed.

So he did. You think Trump won’t be able to hold this new look. You’re probably wrong. This is the first time it mattered. Everything else was 2nd act fun.

Regular readers know I mistakenly called the 3rd act after Trump’s interview with Megyn Kelly. In retrospect, the timing was too early for the Megyn Kelly event to be a proper 3rd act. In movies, the 2nd act typically has a number of smaller problems that are overcome along the way. The Kelly interview fits the 2nd act structure.

Assuming Trump gets elected, I’ll explain to you why the movie script form was predictive, and how I saw it coming a year in advance. You wouldn’t believe me if I told you now.

Is Regret the Same as an Apology?

In classic Trump form, his “apology” was not exactly an apology. Trump expressed regret, but in a way that left all kinds of intentional ambiguity. Who exactly was he apologizing too? Is regret the same as an apology? Does he mean it in his heart? Is the regret for himself or for others?

I turned on CNN after the regret speech just to see heads exploding. I was not disappointed. Trump was trying to remove from his opponents their main weapon – the idea that Trump is a monster – and it frightened the anti-Trump folks in ways that that their faces and voices couldn’t conceal. I think everyone realizes that one solid month of Trump acting sane and empathetic would drive a stake through Clinton’s heart. We’re one week into it.

The most powerful part of Trump’s strategy is that it forces his opposition from a reasonable position (Trump should apologize!) into an absurd position (Trump didn’t apologize the right way!) When the anti-Trumpers were calling for polite behavior out of Trump, they had the high ground. Now that they are criticizing the details of Trump’s “apology” they look ridiculous. It was a perfect persuasion trap. Expect more anti-Trumpers to fall into the trap all day today.

Do you remember how the Khan situation was a perfect persuasion trap? Trump fell into that trap by making a mild comment about Mrs. Khan’s silence on stage. That allowed his opposition to brand him as disrespecting a fallen soldier. Trump created a similar persuasion trap by giving his less-than-ideal “apology” that forced his opponents into petty squawking about the sufficiency and sincerity of the apology. It makes them look small and ridiculous, and it diminishes their moral authority.

The Bigotry Flip

Trump is using the issue of Muslim immigration to argue that Clinton is the candidate promoting bigotry against women and the LBGTQ community. By Trump’s framing, the Democrats might help you get a gay wedding cake but Trump will prevent you from being raped and killed. Fear is the strongest persuader, so Trump effectively owns this argument now. He took the highest of the high ground. Trump is literally risking his reputation and his own life to protect women and gays. Clinton is just trying to get elected. That’s the new frame. And it is persuasive.

Trump is also making a direct appeal for African-American votes, and that’s smart. One of the biggest rules of sales is that you have to directly ask for what you want. Asking for votes is one thing, but asking the African-American community to “try something new” because Clinton hasn’t worked out for them is perfect framing. 

The Odds Now

Prior to this week, Clinton had the momentum and a clear path to an easy victory if nothing changed. But as I blogged then, something always changes. This week Trump changed his campaign staff and softened his public persona to be less scary. If things were to stay the way they are today, Trump wins. His biggest obstacle was Clinton’s framing of him as dangerous, and now Trump is solving for that. He hasn’t done enough yet, but if he stays on the messages we saw this week, and reinforces them, he wins in November.

Unless something changes before then. 

—

If you like apologies, you might like my book. If not, I regret mentioning it.

Several Interesting Things

Check out my long-form conversation with Stefan Molyneux, about lots of things, including Trump. People seem to like it. 

—

Univision announced its plans to buy Gawker (my nemesis) and flush its most turdish parts down the toilet. (No word on Jezebel.com. That one is still a floater.)

–

In political news, Trump has discredited his opponents by persuading them to become violent, cop-killing apologists for gay-haters. And now he turned them into body-shamers. (Any comment, Jezebel.com?)

Trump Won the Week (Persuasion-wise)

As the media has reported, the media caused Trump to have a few terrible weeks following the Democratic National Convention. To be fair, Trump made it easy. They turned his casual comment about Islam’s gender issues (based on Mrs. Khan’s silence) into an imaginary insult to a fallen soldier. And they turned his unwise joke about the 2nd Amendment into an imaginary call for assassination. Trump’s poll numbers showed the damage.

So how did Trump respond? 

Using the Master Persuader Filter as my guide – where persuasion is what matters most – I score this week a victory for Trump. Five reasons.

1. Foreign policy speech (The Muslim ban becomes “extreme vetting”)

2. West Bend speech (Direct appeal to African-American voters)

3. Statement of togetherness (Direct statement about equality)

4. Campaign shakeup (Sets him up for the 3rd act)

5. Clinton’s health questions (We haven’t seen much of her this week)

What we saw this week was Trump directly, and skillfully, addressing the public’s concern that he’s scary and temperamentally unfit for the job of president. This week he was less bombastic, more on script (using the prompter), and he said in clear language that he was on the side of all Americans, rejecting bigotry and hatred in all forms.

People needed to hear that. 

Words alone aren’t enough to change the public’s impression of Trump. But words are a necessary condition of any change, and he got all the words right this week. If he wants to move the polls, he’ll have to stay on these messages and make sure his actions and off-hand jokes don’t conflict with this new and improved approach.

I have hypothesized that one month of Trump acting presidential would be enough to convince people that “Campaigning Trump” is an act, and his real personality is more controlled. If this is the start of that month, it’s a strong start.

We also saw growing chatter (mostly untrue) about Clinton’s health. That is probably the start of Trump framing Clinton as the more risky candidate. If Trump stays on message, and Clinton keeps her light campaign schedule, the “fear persuasion” will swing his way. 

As regular readers know, I have explained that fear is generally the best persuader because our minds are wired to see physical danger as our top priority. Trump got an early lead on his GOP rivals by playing to our fears about terrorism and immigration in general. That was a winning hand for awhile.

But Clinton wisely pivoted from talking about policies and experience to a message that Trump himself was civilization’s greatest risk. That is a winning hand because while it might be true that a terrorist will kill people you don’t know, if Trump nukes the entire planet, that affects you. My guess is that the Master Persuader I call Godzilla helped craft Clinton’s fear message about Trump. As things stand today, Clinton has the stronger fear message and the stronger position.

To counter Clinton’s fear-based persuasion, Trump either needs to become less scary or he needs to make Clinton more scary. Trump’s calmer demeanor (this week), his softened immigration policies (”extreme vetting”), and his direct statements in favor of the African-American and LGBTQ communities is a good step in the right direction. He says good things about protecting women too. People have a right to be skeptical, but ask yourself which dictators of the past ever talked in such inclusive and loving terms. Now consider that “no nation-building” is part of the Trump foreign policy message and he doesn’t look so scary and dictator-like this week.

Meanwhile, questions about Clinton’s health continue to gain traction. I can’t imagine many things scarier than a president with a suspected brain problem. If that idea crosses over from the far right to mainstream conversation, Trump will be “running unopposed.”

For those of you questioning my objectivity, keep doing that. It’s healthy. But keep in mind that I scored the prior weeks for Clinton (because Godzilla), and as things stand today, she still has the stronger persuasion package. Trump moved things in the right direction this week, but he has a lot of work to do.

On a related note, if the campaign were a movie, the so-called third-act would be marked by Trump shaking up his campaign team so he can be more himself and less scripted. You don’t expect that to work. You expect Trump to be his terrible Trump self, reckless and under-informed.

Then he overperforms at the first debate. That’s how a great story goes.

And that’s why you hire Roger Ailes to prep you for the debates. The movie demands it.

Readers noted that I expected the third-act pivot sooner. But that was dumb of me because no movie puts the third-act before the last 20 minutes of the movie’s end. The second act of a movie would feature the protagonist overcoming several smaller hurdles that seemed big until you saw the final hurdle. Trump has overcome a number of smaller hurdles to get this far. Now, with time running out, and Trump behind in the polls, we’re near the largest hurdle.

—

You might like my book because life is sometimes like a movie, and sometimes not.

Medical Records and Tax Returns

As voters, we would like to see the medical records and tax returns of our candidates for president. But that would be a violation of their privacy to such a degree that it would discourage talented people from public service in the future.

So how about a compromise?

I suggest that a three-person panel of doctors look at each candidate’s health records and report to the public only the items that all three doctors believe to be materially important to the health of the president. We don’t need to know about their acid reflux, their hives, or their toe fungus. That stuff should stay private. But if all three doctors agree that a health problem has a big risk factor, they tell the public.

If the doctors disagree on the importance of a particular item, the candidate has the option of allowing that item’s release or knowing there is a dissenting opinion on his/her health record. It isn’t a perfect system, but it seems better than what we have.

For taxes, a three-person group of accountants could look at each candidate’s tax returns and report to us only the things that would be of material importance to the job of being president. We don’t need to know their income or their charitable deductions. And the IRS will decide if laws are broken. I’m not sure what other types of issues one might find on tax returns, but the accountants can help us with that.

This idea is less-than-half-baked, but it seems to me we can solve the problem of maintaining reasonable privacy for the candidates while satisfying the public good. Any new system would have its own problems, but I think we can do better than the current situation.

Because this should scare you: http://www.infowars.com/dr-drew-gravely-concerned-about-hillary-clintons-health/

I’m spending more time on Twitter lately, at @ScottAdamsSays. Come watch me insult my badly-bearded critics.

—

You might like my book as much as you like being healthy, and vice-versa.

Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech

Let’s talk about Trump’s foreign policy speech from a persuasion standpoint. 

Trump read from the teleprompter and acted more “presidential,” whatever that means. And he softened his position on Muslim immigration to “extreme vetting.” That was a good strategy for rebranding himself as less scary, but I doubt many people will watch that speech, so it won’t have much impact. 

Anyway, let’s talk about what else Trump got right – or wrong – persuasion-wise.

I thought it was a big mistake for Trump to use the word “vicious” when talking about the search for potential terrorists in the homeland. That only makes Trump look scarier. And scariness is his biggest problem right now.

It was also a big mistake to talk about taking the oil from Iraq to pay for the wounded soldiers and their families. Trump could have sold his “take the oil” idea by clarifying that the funds would pay for our military presence to keep Iraq secure, for the benefit of Iraqis. And part of that budget could go to wounded vets and military families. That would sound better.

I watched Clinton surrogates on CNN criticize Trump’s speech, and their criticisms were mostly these two:

1. All of Trump’s foreign policy ideas are crazy and uninformed.

2. Obama is already wisely doing all of those same things.

That would seem absurd in any other context. But keep in mind that we voters believe we can assess foreign policy ideas by listening to biased liars talk on television. So the entire situation is ridiculous, but we play along.

Trump talked about cutting off ISIS from the Internet. Pundits scoffed at this idea because the Internet is everywhere and you can’t really turn it off for some people. Trump could have headed-off that criticism by explaining that we can turn off the Internet in selected areas, such as within the ISIS Caliphate, where it matters most. I blogged about doing exactly that in this post, so we could A-B test “historical Islam” within the Caliphate and compare it to the heathen world elsewhere. Let young folks see both experiments and choose for themselves. That should take care of recruitment.

Trump seemed to emphasize the use of persuasion to end ISIS recruitment. I think he called their version of persuasion propaganda. I assume the Obama administration is already doing plenty in this realm, but I also assume that Trump, The Master Persuader, would put even more emphasis on persuasion. Persuasion is the only sensible path for ending ISIS. Trump is right on that, although the details obviously matter.

When Trump talks of “extreme vetting” of Muslim immigrants, that sounds a lot like using technology to detect bad intentions. I blogged about that here. It seems feasible to me.

The genius of “extreme vetting” is that it means whatever you want it to mean. Clinton supporters will say we are already doing it. Trump supporters will say it’s a clever trick to block all Muslim immigrants. No one can disagree with “extreme vetting” because it has no specific meaning. Perfect.

I liked the clarity of Trump’s idea that anyone who wants to fight ISIS is our ally. Agree or disagree, the clarity of that thought is stunning. In the real world, things are never that simple. But as a message for the voting public, it is extraordinary in its persuasive simplicity. Your brain reflexively interprets the simplest explanation as the smartest one, even if it is not. Trump’s super-simple formula for picking allies is persuasion genius even if you think it is impractical in the real world. It sure sounds good. And it sounds like it came from someone who has a clear vision.

People keep asking me if it is a mistake for Trump to act so friendly to Russia. I keep asking in return who in America hates Russia in 2016? On an intellectual level, we recognize Russia as a rival. But on an emotional level, Americans seem to have some affection for Russia, and vice-versa. Once again, Trump’s policies are compatible with emotion, where all persuasion lives.

Trump never mentioned the wall with Mexico. You could argue that the wall is a domestic issue, not a foreign affair. But in any case, it was smart to leave it out of a speech that was designed to show Trump is even-tempered and reasonable.

Trump created for Democrats the same type of persuasion trap that the Democrats created with the Khan speech at their convention. Any criticism of the Khans was a criticism of their fallen hero son. Using a similar trap structure, Trump has tied his “extreme vetting” policy to the idea of protecting women and the LGBTQ community. If you don’t like Trump’s immigration ideas, you have to explain why you would be willing to put women and LGBTQ folks in mortal danger. That framing is strong persuasion, and Democrats don’t yet have a direct counter to it.

If you’re a woman and/or a member of the LGBTQ community, you’d have to be uninformed or deeply in cognitive dissonance to support the mass importation of those who want to subjugate and kill you. Trump took the highest ground on that topic. And he brought the GOP along for the ride. That’s a big deal.

Overall, I would say Trump’s speech had major flaws, but it did accomplish several important things:

1. The speech made Trump seem less scary. His Muslim ban idea became “extreme vetting,” and the rest of his plans to fight ISIS looked a lot like current policies. Not so scary.

2. We witnessed clear evidence that Trump listens to advisors. The shift to using a teleprompter and moving to “extreme vetting” are two examples. And I doubt it was Trump’s idea to leave out any mention of the Mexican wall.

2. Trump took the high ground on protecting women and LGBTQ folks even at the risk to his own political fortunes. He can legitimately claim to own that issue now.

In past blog posts I have explained how the biggest fear is always the most persuasive. Trump got a good headstart in this election by scaring the public about immigration. But Clinton later responded by framing the scare as Trump himself. That was a strong play because voters don’t think a terrorist will kill them personally, but if Trump destroys the entire world in a nuclear fireball, that’s a bad day for all. So Clinton is currently ahead in the persuasion-by-fear department.

If Trump wants to win by taking our collective fears to a new and higher level, he already set the stage by suggesting that immigration will lead to Sharia law and abuse of women and LGBTQ folks. If that concept is made visual, and tied to Clinton’s policies, it would be strong persuasion. (But doing it wrong would look racist. So it’s big risk.)

—

If you like drinking coffee on a beautiful summer morning, you might like reading my book.

Polls and the B.S. Detector

In my book –  that you might enjoy because it is full of words – I talk about developing your own personal bullsh*t detector. I won’t rewrite that chapter here, but I’ll tell you how my own B.S. detector sees the accuracy of the presidential polls.

One of the things I look for when I’m trying to detect B.S. is to see if two or more sources of information are in agreement. The polls showing Clinton with a solid lead seem to be in agreement, so that is strong evidence that it is a true snapshot of current sentiment. Some polls could be biased, and probably are. But all of them? That seems unlikely.

Common sense tells me there are enough anti-Trumpers in the world that they might indeed form a solid majority at this point in history. That’s not impossible on the surface of things. Common sense does not conflict with the idea that Clinton is ahead.

Now consider the size of the gatherings for Trump rallies versus Clinton events. That suggests a huge under-polling of Trump supporters. But another explanation is equally credible: Trump is more entertaining. That alone could explain the difference in event attendance.

Trump also dominates on Internet engagement stats, and he does better with online polls than with phone polls. But that could be nothing but a sign that he has more energy on the Internet. It doesn’t directly translate to votes.

So what are the strongest arguments that the polls are wrong and Trump will win in the end?

Anecdotally, many Trump supporters know other Trump supporters who won’t admit their Trump support, even to loved ones, much less to pollsters calling their homes. It just isn’t safe to support Trump in many parts of America. I live in one of those places, and that’s why I endorsed Hillary Clinton for my personal safety. It’s just safer. (And yes, I am totally serious.)

The so-called Shy Trump Supporter is real, but we have no accurate way to measure them. Likewise, we have no way to measure people who haven’t yet been motivated to register but might later.

We also have to ask ourselves whether it is possible for all of the separate polls to be “rigged” in favor of Clinton. My B.S. filter says that whenever you have a situation in which there is a lot to gain, opportunity for cheating, and a low risk of getting caught, shenanigans always happen. So I expect, based on that universal law alone, that SOME of the polls are rigged and SOME of the actual election will be rigged as well.

But since all polls show Trump behind, and it is deeply unlikely that all polls are rigged, my best guess is that only the outlier polls are rigged, or at least inaccurate. Trump is probably down, but not as much as poll averages suggest.

My best guess is that Trump is genuinely behind in the polls, and unless something big changes, he will lose the election.

But something big always happens. Probably several big things will happen between now and November. And it might include one or more of these things:

1. New Clinton health issue or revelation

2. New Wikileak that is more damaging than what we have seen.

3. New Clinton Foundation revelations worse than what we have seen.

4. Trump makes an uncharacteristically empathetic speech that shows he can take advice, is not irrational, and that he loves all Americans.

5. The Shy Trump Supporter is really a monster size.

6. Godzilla changes sides.

7. I take sides.

8. A major terror event.

9. Trump outperforms expectations in the debates (especially the first one).

Anything can happen. But I think there are more potential shocks on the Clinton side because any bad news about Trump’s character or business dealings are already baked into the cake. He is virtually shock-proof. Clinton is not.

I still predict a Trump landslide, based on the 3rd act movie formula. Trump is in his deepest hole right now. This is when the surprise happens (next two months) if it is going to happen. He’s had other deep holes, but none as deep as this. This is the big one because time is running out.

—

For new readers, I don’t vote, and I don’t support the policies of either candidate. My political preferences are quite different from both. And I think it is insane to elect 70-year-olds to a job that requires so much energy and mental agility. You wouldn’t hire a 70-year-old for any other type of job that they had never held. Why does it make sense here? (Answer: cognitive dissonance)

—

The Greatest Cognitive Dissonance Trap of All Time

Here’s the set-up:

1. The mainstream media knows they are smarter than Donald Trump. They see evidence of this truth all the time, although much of that evidence is confirmation bias. 

Then…

2. Trump does something smart – accusing Obama and Clinton of being “founders” of ISIS. This is a clever way to get the world to debate Clinton and Obama’s ineffectiveness during a time when ISIS expanded. In other words, it is brilliant media manipulation, and it worked.

3. CNN and other Clinton supporters interpret Trump’s statement about ISIS as absurd and uninformed because they can’t imagine a scenario in which Trump does something brilliant. Trump being brilliant isn’t one of the options, as far as they know.

The reality of Trump’s clever persuasion is crystal-clear to anyone who thinks Trump is smart. Trump was clearly joking about the “founder” part to get people squawking, and it worked. Total success. Brilliant technique.

Now the media has a big problem. They can’t admit that they were extraordinarily dumb in this situation and Trump was brilliant. That reality is invisible to them because it doesn’t fit their worldview.

So…cognitive dissonance happens. 

This is a textbook set-up for cognitive dissonance. The facts we observe (Trump is smart, the media is gullible) is opposite of the media’s worldview in which they are smart and Trump is uninformed. So what do they do?

They act as if Trump is the dumb one in this situation. Because that fits their worldview.

And…they…fact-check his claim.

Meanwhile, the unhypnotized laugh themselves into a stupor watching this spectacle of cognitive dissonance. Humor aside, it is a marvelous and incredible thing to behold.

One of my smartest friends just emailed me to say he thinks Trump really believes that Obama and Clinton “founded” ISIS. My friend has a very high IQ and he’s well-informed. But cognitive dissonance isn’t influenced by intelligence. He believes whatever fits his worldview. Just like the rest of us.

The fun part is that we can see cognitive dissonance when it happens to others – such as with my friend, and CNN – but we can’t see it when it happens to us. So don’t get too smug about this. You’re probably next. 

I think this story will end up in psychology textbooks. You rarely see such a clean example of cognitive dissonance in public.

Oh, and Trump hates babies, and he also wants a 2nd amendment supporter to assassinate his opponent. As long as the media is being dumbasses, they might as well fact-check that stuff too.

I have never been so entertained.

—

If you think Obama and Clinton were not founders of ISIS, you might like my book.

Trump Prediction Update

As you know, Donald Trump has been sinking in the polls, thanks to the Clinton campaign adopting Trump-like persuasion tactics and framing the GOP nominee as an unstable, racist maniac. That approach is working, and time is running out for Trump to change things.

Should I update my prediction of a Trump landslide?

For background, I endorsed Hillary Clinton (for my personal safety) but I’ve been predicting since last year that Trump would win in a landslide because of his superior persuasion skills. That situation changed this summer when Clinton abandoned her losing strategy of sticking to reality. Apparently the Clinton campaign now has help from some of the world’s top Master Persuaders, including, I believe, the one I call Godzilla. It seems that these highly-skilled influencers advised Clinton to steer clear of facts and reason and scare the hell out of voters by painting Trump as a thin-skinned, unstable racist. That approach is working.

My personal bias is that I don’t think any 70ish-year old person (Clinton or Trump) should be president. You wouldn’t hire a 70-year old into any other type of job that requires high energy, mental flexibility, and a possible eight-years of service. Why would we do it for the most important job in the land? And keep in mind that we haven’t seen detailed medical records from either oldster. 

Objectively speaking, we are likely to have incompetent leadership – because of age alone – no matter whether Clinton or Trump wins. That should scare you.

My prediction from last year – that Trump would win the general election in a landslide – was based on his persuasion advantage. That advantage is largely gone now because Clinton has evidently hired some weapons-grade Master Persuaders and moved to a purely emotional appeal, specifically fear. And it is working.

If nothing changes, Clinton will win in November. But things rarely stay the same. Here are several ways Trump could still win from behind.

1. Voters discover that Clinton has been hiding a major health issue.

2. Wikileaks releases something damaging.

3. Trump over-performs at the first debate, showing the world that he is willing and able to master the issues.

4. Trump makes the case that the Clinton Foundation is really about selling influence to foreign concerns.

5. Trump gives a speech or interview that is so effective in its empathy that he no longer appears to be crazy and racist.

6. A new surprise revelation about Clinton that no one sees coming.

7. Terror attacks push everything else out of the headlines in the final months.

8. Someone assassinates Clinton because of Trump’s 2nd Amendment joke.

Trump still has several ways to win, and at least three of those paths are under his control. But to be fair, we have seen no evidence that Trump is likely to do anything different in terms of style. So don’t count on a personality change.

In terms of persuasion technique, Clinton now has world-class advisors, but Trump still has the advantage of his risk profile. Trump can take bigger risks and go places Clinton wouldn’t dare. So Trump’s persuasion can be stronger if he chooses to increase his risk. Clinton will be more constrained by political correctness.

I started my blogging about Trump last year by saying the Master Persuader Filter might be the best tool for predicting the outcome of the election. Using that filter, I accurately predicted Trump’s rise to the GOP nomination against all odds. If the filter fails to predict the results of the general election, keep in mind that it will be because Clinton hired better persuaders, and not because of policies and experience. 

For the sake of entertainment, I’ll stick with my prediction of a Trump landslide win. But it can only happen if something big changes.

And something big changes about once a week.

—

You might be interested in reading my weird interview with TheRinger.com.

—

Speaking of changes, a lot of people are saying you should read my book.

How to Identify the Brainwashed

If you have been following this blog since last year, you know I have been saying Trump was playing 3D chess against 2D opponents. And by that I meant Trump was using powerful persuasion techniques while the rest of the field was flailing away with facts, reason, policy details, and other things that don’t change anyone’s mind.

Then, in late spring, at about the time that Bernie Sanders’ flamed out, Clinton ascended to the 3D playing field and stayed there, thanks to help – I assume – from one or more weapons-grade behavioral psychologists who joined the cause. For the past few months both candidates have operated in the third dimension, where emotion and persuasion rule, and facts are irrelevant.

Recently, Clinton has been winning in the third dimension. She abandoned her 2D rational arguments about experience and policies and started hypnotizing voters into believing they have the power to predict the future if they try hard enough. And in that imaginary future, Donald Trump is incinerating the world with nuclear fire because he can’t take advice, or he’s a narcissist, or he’s unstable, or he’s Hitler Version 2.0. This approach is excellent persuasion, and it is working for Clinton.

Don’t expect to hear anything honest or true come from the mouths of either candidate for the rest of the campaign. Both candidates are skillfully building imaginary castles and make-believe demons out of your cognitive dissonance and your confirmation bias. You’re seeing the best-of-the-best persuaders (and helpers) operating at the highest level. Facts and policies are sitting this one out.

If you are an American voter, in all likelihood you are deeply hypnotized already and don’t know it. I mean that literally. At this point, nearly every voter is in a deep hallucination. I could give you lots of reasons why I know that, but you wouldn’t believe any of them because cognitive dissonance won’t let my words penetrate your bubble of non-reality. 

But I’ll try, just for fun.

If you support either Clinton or Trump for president, you are under the illusion that it makes sense to hire a 70-year old (approximately) for the most important job in the land – and one that could last eight years. That would be absurd in any other hiring context. But you are brainwashed to believe it is perfectly fine in this case. It isn’t.

Likewise, if you think either Clinton or Trump have good policy ideas, that is evidence that you are brainwashed. As a civilian, you have no idea which policies are better for the economy, or trade agreements, or immigration, or for battling ISIS. But you think you do because you have been brainwashed into believing that voters can know that sort of thing. They can’t. The candidates don’t know either. 

But my favorite way to identify brainwashed citizens is by the way they start comments on social media. The brainwashed start with one of the following openers and then go on to offer either sarcasm or no argument at all.

Look for these tells to identify the brainwashed:

1. LOL

2. Wow.

3. So…

4. In other words…

5. OMG

6. HAHAHAHA!

7. (Any personal or professional insult)

8. Hitler analogy

To be clear, these are only tells if they don’t accompany some sort of rational counter-arguments or facts. If you see LOL followed by a link to a good counter-argument, or to credible studies, that’s not brainwashing. It is only when you see the tells presented as a substitute for reason that they signal brainwashing.

Another tell for brainwashing involves people hallucinating an opponent’s opinion and using sarcasm to mock their own hallucination. Example: “LOL. So you’re saying we should put all poor people in jail? Wow.”

Look for those tells in others. But more importantly, look for them in yourself.

—

If you have seen people use LOL on social media, you might love my book. I’m not sure why.