Scott Adams's Blog, page 263

Super Tuesday (Master Persuader Series)

Donald Trump did well in the Super Tuesday primary states, surprising no one who reads this blog. Here are my thoughts about last night, as seen through the Master Persuader filter.

Candidates who win primaries usually do a little victory speech the same night. Trump turned his brief remarks into an extended press conference that had all the optics of a sitting president. He called on reporters, took hard questions, and swatted them away like King Kong at the top of the Empire State building.

In other words, he made you think past the sale. Your rational mind knows Trump is not yet president, and yet you observe Trump looking and acting like a sitting president. When it comes to persuasion, visuals beat reason. This was one of Trump’s best 3D chess moves so far.

It was obvious that Trump was trying to showcase his moderate, non-scary side – so the public knows he has one – and by most accounts he succeeded. I thought he succeeded as well. His statements about supporting women’s health in the context of Planned Parenthood funding – against the grain of his own party – were especially powerful.

Trump’s impromptu press conference was insanely brilliant. CNN probably lost money because they couldn’t take a commercial break until he was done, and he was in no hurry. It was the longest free political commercial of all time, and the best possible format for Trump. It was also riveting because you didn’t know what would happen next.

Unlike other formats – such as debates and normal press interviews – Trump completely dominated the stage and the reporters. He made them raise their hands to talk, then he interrupted when he didn’t like the question, and dismissed the trouble-makers with their long, repetitive, damning questions.

Best of all, Trump got to do some disavowing of David Duke in front of the world. And this time he did it right. The first words out of his mouth this time were “I disavow.” 

That is good technique. A Master Persuader says FIRST the thing he wants you to remember. Then he explains why. If you do those things in reverse order – which is a common error – you get a hot mess. Good persuaders start with the conclusion first in this sort of situation. Bad persuaders give the reasoning first and work toward the conclusion.

Regular readers of this blog know that laughter can be a tell for persuasion. As I watched Trump’s press conference, I found myself giggling without an obvious cause. I’ll bet some of you did the same.

Chris Christie did his best impression of Trump’s future vice president, but he seemed physically uncomfortable on stage when Trump was speaking. I think he was either exhausted or not feeling well. The Internet was not kind to him.

By now you know there is a rumor that the New York Times has a recording of Trump acting reasonable about his deportation plans. When asked about it at his “press conference,” Trump said he was not contemplating any compromise “at this time.”

In other words, Trump said he would not compromise, but he did so in language that assures you it is an option for later. Everyone gets to hear what they want. That’s strategic ambiguity.

Trump’s Super Tuesday dominance gives him a solid lead. But his impromptu press conference was Trump showing us what his afterburners will look like when he fires them up for the general election. 

You haven’t seen anything yet.

You might wonder what it’s like to be me, and to see the future so clearly in this particular case. The answer is that this is my normal, so yesterday just seemed like Tuesday to me. When you learn enough about the science of persuasion, the mysteries of life start to fall away. A good start on that journey is my Persuasion Reading List.

Strategic Ambiguity (Master Persuasion Series)

If you have been watching the news lately you know that Donald Trump disavowed the endorsement of racist David Duke. Unless you are watching CNN, in which case, their version of the news is that he didn’t do enough disavowing that one time.

If you’re a racist, you have a reason to like Trump because of CNN’s intentional misreporting and the fact that Trump didn’t do enough disavowing that one time. If you’re not a racist, you can like Trump because he disavowed racists several times, in writing and on video. 

That’s strategic ambiguity.

If you hate socialized healthcare, you might like Trump, because he hates socialized medicine too. Except that he also says he won’t let people with no money “die on the streets.” So if you like socialized medicine, you might like giving free healthcare to those people, like Trump.

That’s strategic ambiguity.

If you hate illegal immigrants, you might like Trump because he says he will deport every one of them. But if you feel compassion for illegal immigrants who are otherwise good residents of the country, you know Trump always makes a big first offer and will later negotiate to something humane and reasonable.

That’s strategic ambiguity.

If you oppose war, you might like Trump because he opposed the Iraq war and has a history of being reluctant to commit U.S. forces overseas. But if you think the U.S. should keep bombing other countries, Trump might be your candidate because he wants to bomb the shit out of ISIS and maybe kill some of their families too.

That’s strategic ambiguity.

If you want a religious president, Trump can give you that. He has belonged to a church since youth and says the Bible is a great book. But if you don’t like mixing religion and politics, Trump might be your candidate because he hasn’t made a big deal about religion.

That’s strategic ambiguity.

I could go on like this for another hour or so, but I think you get the picture. And when you see the pattern, you realize none of it is by accident. Trump intentionally gives opposing sides reasons to like him, or at least not disqualify him. And as ridiculous as it seems for a strategy, it works like a charm because of confirmation bias. People see whatever they want to see. 

You might be aware that I have been saying good things about Donald Trump’s persuasion skills for months. This has led many people to believe I endorse Trump for president.

But earlier this week I disavowed Trump for his strategic ambiguity on racism. So if you hate Trump, you can be okay with me because I disavowed him. And if you love Trump you can be okay with me because I say good things about his talent on a regular basis. 

That’s strategic ambiguity.

Now you know why I disavowed Trump for not disavowing racism hard enough that one time even though he clearly disavowed it before and after the time he did not disavow it so clearly.

The facts were never important to me. I ignored the facts publicly and shamelessly because doing so provided me the best possible outcome: strategic ambiguity.

If Trump wins big today for Super Tuesday, as polls predict, I will be one of the few pundits who saw it coming last year. And if Trump stumbles, today or soon, I already removed myself from the splatter zone by disavowing him. 

Joe Scarborough made the same play that I did, presumably for the same reason. Scarborough had been labelled as too supportive of Trump because – like me – he recognized Trump’s persuasion talent before most of the herd. So Scarborough fixed his problem the same way I did, with some strategic ambiguity. Now you’re not so sure which side he is on, if any.

It is noteworthy that two people who saw Trump’s persuasion skills early (Scarborough and me) both took the same strategy and opportunity to generate strategic ambiguity for ourselves.

I haven’t watched Scarborough enough to know if he has Master Persuader skills, but I’ve got my eye on him now.

Today will be fun. I might be on Periscope later tonight watching the primary results if you want to say hi.

Trump’s VP Options (Master Persuader Filter)

Just for fun, let’s say Trump has five options for VP. 

John Kasich
Some other white male governor
Superstar woman or minority governor
Mark Cuban
Chris Christie

I’ll break down the choices for you and run them through the Master Persuader filter for a prediction.

In normal elections, the party nominee picks a VP running mate that can help win an important state. But Trump is likely to run the table without that specific kind of help. Instead, Trump needs some legitimacy around the hard work of governing and cajoling congress. Trump says that directly.

On the Master Persuader Filter, I see the options this way:

John Kasich: Too boring. Trump would prefer a candidate who can suck all the energy away from the other VP choice. Kasich is too safe.

Some other White, Male Governor: Unlikely for the same reason that Kasich is. No sizzle.

Superstar woman or minority governor: This option has the sizzle, but could a woman or minority credibly side with Trump? I don’t think so. And the media would do nothing but ask that person how he or she could be on Trump’s team. It would be a distraction. And it would seem more pandering than straight-shooting.

Mark Cuban: Cuban would be my first choice for Trump VP, but he adds nothing in terms of governing experience. Worse yet, the media would keep saying Cuban should be running for president instead of Trump. That is not a comparison Trump wants. But if he decided to take a chance on that comparison, a Trump/Cuban ticket would be unbeatable.

Chris Christie: If you think about it, Christie is the poor man’s Trump. He has plenty of sizzle – just short of Trump’s wattage – and he reinforces the straight-talking, hard-ass approach of Trump. This is an ideal comparison for Trump. Relatively few people would say the ticket should be reversed with Christie on top. And Christie is sufficiently experienced to take over the presidency if needed. I assume they could work well together. Many asses would be kicked.

You might think that a Trump/Christie ticket would alienate the South and the West. But Trump has shown strength everywhere, so that is less of an issue than it would be in a normal election.

The Master Persuader filter says Trump will pick Christie. I put the odds at 70%.

For new readers, I disavowed Trump so I can stay out of the splatter zone. But I still predict he will win the presidency in a landslide that will make history.

Movie Persuasion Recommendations

If you have been following my Master Persuader series, and you want to learn more about persuasion by watching great movies, I give you two suggestions.

Spotlight: This movie is about The Boston Globe’s investigation into the Catholic Church’s pattern of protecting priests accused of molesting children. The persuasion angle is watching how all of the characters (taken from real life) rationalize their behaviors. It is also a terrific movie in its own right.

The Big Short: This movie is about the few people who saw the financial market meltdown of 2009 before it happened and couldn’t convince other “experts” that the signs were there. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

I resisted watching The Big Short because I heard that Steve Carrell played a character that is a jerk with anger issues. I didn’t think that would work. But he totally nails it. Great movie.

Collectively, those movies show you that large organizations filled with smart people are generally corrupt whenever the stakes are high, the odds of getting caught are low, and the opportunity exists. 

That’s how you know the caucuses and primaries are probably rigged to some extent. If they are not rigged at all – even a little – it might be the only time in human history that there was opportunity, a big upside, low odds of detection, and yet no foul play. 

So that’s your red line between conspiracy theory and gullibility. 

Dilbert’s Changed Look Explained

Dilbert will look different the next six weeks.

I haven’t taken a day off from work for about three years, and my drawing hand needed some rest and rehab. So I asked my “coworkers” (at Universal Uclick) to fill in for me while I try to figure out how vacations work. (The alternative was running repeats.)

My instructions to the guest artist were that I would do the writing and they were free to draw Dilbert in their own style, or to copy mine as best they could. You will see six different Dilbert styles in six weeks. This first week is drawn by the President of Universal Uclick, John Glynn. The last week in the series will be drawn by an intern. So…expect every week to be better than the one before :-).

The names of the vacation artists are between the panels.

My plan to bring in guest artists from among my readers to write and draw Dilbert for a week turned out to be problematic for a variety of boring reasons. So I apologize for that. 

However, I welcome any of you who were interested in that opportunity to post your own comics in the comments section here. At least you’ll get a lot of viewers, and maybe something good can come out of it. (Consider it a system, not a goal.)

Disavowing Trump

I disavow Trump. Because of this and a few other things.

His skills are still impressive.

Update: Just to be clear, what I’m doing here is getting out of the splatter zone. I am aware that Trump has disavowed David Duke and the KKK in the past and I am certain he will do more of it. But any ambiguity on this topic is his problem, not mine. I’ll let him sort it out. 

I don’t know who would do the best job as president. That’s a separate question. The leaders in the polls all seem to have deep flaws.

The Choke Artist Versus the Watch Salesman (Trump Persuasion Series)

Let’s compare Trump’s and Rubio’s Linguistic Kill Shots from the Republican debate last night.

I’m ignoring Cruz today because he seemed to be arguing his case to a bored jury. He wasn’t terribly interesting last night. He seemed lawyerly.

Rubio showed a new feisty side at the debate, going after Trump for hiring illegal Polish workers 35 years ago through a subcontractor, pointing out Trump’s notable business failures, saying Trump would be selling watches in Manhattan if he had not inherited wealth, and mocking Trump’s healthcare plan that is light on details. Rubio also called-out Trump for repeating himself during the debate. Trump seemed on the defensive more than usual.

Rubio’s debate grade: A+

That was all good stuff. I don’t know if Rubio got a new advisor or just decided this was the time to put it all out there. 

Robot Rubio? Gone. He was replaced by feisty Rubio. That’s a big deal, and well-executed.

Trump had his worst debate in terms of how much time was spent on topics that are bad for Trump. In the past, Trump’s magic involved making the public focus on the weaknesses of his opponents. Rubio flipped that around with his flurry of quotable attacks.

Now for Trump.

Trump tested a new Linguistic Kill Shot for Rubio, calling him a “choke artist” for freezing up on stage at the last debate. As always, Trump’s engineered kill shots have the following qualities:

1. The insult is a type you haven’t heard before in politics. I call it a fresh field insult. That allows Trump to imbue it with his own meaning. The words “choke artist” do not remind you of anyone else in politics.

2. Adding “artist” to choke makes you think past the sale. The sale is whether Rubio is a choker. Your brain accepts that truth in order to process whether or not Rubio is an artist at choking or just a regular choker. (I’ll bet you missed that.)

3. It took about ten seconds for Twitter users to realize that “choke artist” reminded them of a sexual act that sometimes happens after the foam party at the gay nightclub. And let’s say the “artist” in this case is not the one standing upright. 

In the interest of context, you need to know that bad people on the Internet have been trying to get the Rubio-is-gay rumor going for months. I’ve avoided that topic until now because you can’t write about it without becoming part of it. For the record, I doubt Rubio is gay, but maybe he experimented with some Koch contributions in college. Personally, I think having another gay president would be kinda cool. Lincoln did okay. But the gay rumor about Rubio might have an impact on Republican voters who are not aware of how much their beloved Abe Lincoln loved logs.

4. Deniability. Trump didn’t say Rubio is gay. All he said is that Rubio got sweaty and froze up during a debate. Any other interpretation is your own. As far as you know.

Now let’s compare Rubio’s and Trump’s linguistic kill shots.

Rubio went after Trump’s strength, which in this case is Trump’s reputation as a skilled business operator. That was good strategy and he did it well.

Trump, however, went after Rubio’s weaknesses, by mentioning his choking under pressure. Trump’s Linguistic Kill Shot – as always – matches the physicality of his opponent, not exclusively his behavior. (Rubio attacked only Trump’s behavior.)

Trump also alerted the press and the public to be looking for any examples of future Rubio choking. Now that we are looking for it, we are likely to find it even in places it does not exist. If Rubio makes even the smallest speaking miscue – as all people do – we are primed see it as choking. Advantage: Trump.

In summary, Trump’s Linguistic Kill Shot has weapons-grade engineering (as usual) whereas Rubio’s attacks were a festival of A-B testing. Rubio threw everything at Trump and waited to see what would stick. Phase 2 will be hitting the sticky stuff hard.

You can’t compare Rubio’s A-B testing to Trump’s finished Linguistic Kill Shot. That’s apples and oranges. But Rubio did set himself up to get stronger once he knows what works best. 

Most observers, including me, believe Rubio’s good night was a case of too little and too late. I think that’s probably right. But the one thing we know for sure is that Rubio will not be Trump’s VP choice. That option died last night.

How to Spot a Narcissist (Trump Persuasion Series)

Donald Trump is the most famous narcissist in the world. That fact probably seems obvious to you, given Trump’s continuous self-promotion. Mental health experts agree with your assessment. Trump hits most of the checkboxes for the diagnosis.

The biggest tell for narcissism is a belief that you are better than other people. For example, if Trump believed he could run for President – with almost no political experience – and dominate the Republican party in only a few short months, that would be an example of…

Okay, wait. That one doesn’t work. Apparently his self-image was spot-on in that one specific case. It was the rest of us who got that one wrong.

But still, Trump obviously has an inflated self-image. For example, there was the time he thought he could transition from being a real estate developer to being a best-selling author of a book about negotiating, but then…shit. Okay, that example doesn’t work.

Okay, how about this example: Remember when Trump thought he could transition from developing real estate and being a best selling author to becoming a reality TV star and then…okay, forget that one. That sort of worked out for Trump.

Um…okay, I have one. Remember all of the Trump real estate and casino businesses that failed? I think there were a handful of big failures. That’s a terrible track record when you consider Trump’s hundreds of successful projects that…shit. Okay, that example doesn’t work when you put it in context.

But the ego on that guy. For example, Trump thinks models are attracted to him. Models! Ha ha! And they are, but my point is that I forget what my point is. Something about his ego? Yes, that’s it.

Anyway, Trump thinks he is smarter than most people just because he has a high IQ and went to great schools. Usually that does mean you are smarter than 98% of the public, but in this case it was probably just luck, because obviously all of us are smarter than Trump. I mean, look at his haircut!

Narcissists also seek attention from others. That is Trump all over! Compare his attention-seeking ways to other people who license their brands for a living. Those other people like to stay quiet or maybe say their brand is not so good. That is what good mental health looks like. But narcissist Trump actually promotes his brand every chance he gets, which is gross. Sure, it makes him a lot of money, but capitalism is about more than that. For example, something about the Fed.

Anyway, unlike Trump, the other candidates for President of the United States do not seek attention. Okay, technically they are seeking it as hard as they can, and failing. But to me, that seems exactly the same as not trying.

Narcissism is more than having an over-inflated ego and a need for attention. Narcissists also lack empathy. That’s Trump all over. He has no empathy whatsoever. Sure, he says he loves wounded veterans, underemployed Americans, and even the undereducated. But you know all of that is lies. 

How do you know? Simple! You know because you are far smarter than normal people. You might be an unrecognized genius, given your modesty. Maybe you’re not the test-taking kind of genius, but you are definitely a beacon of common sense. For example, you know for sure which candidate would be the best president while idiots like me can only guess. In fact, you are so smart that you can peer into Trump’s soul from a distance and see his lack of empathy. Impressive! And, I might add that you are an ace at diagnosing mental conditions despite your total lack of training in the field. You, my friend, are indeed better than other people because you see Trump for the over-inflated, uncaring buffoon that he is. And unlike Trump, you do not seek attention. So don’t leave a comment below to showcase your brilliance. 

Narcissism is definitely a thing. But we also need a name for the mental condition in which you believe you are so smart you can diagnose narcissism from a distance. 

I won’t call you a narcissist unless you state your opinion in a public comment forum and insult other voters and commenters as if you have no empathy. So don’t do that.

Some Respect for Hillary Clinton

This election cycle has produced some spectacular entertainment. But it has also produced (already) spectacular benefits for the country. It would be easy to miss those benefits. I’ll explain.

For starters, we no longer assume a non-politician can’t get nominated for a major party. Trump seems on the way to do that. That probably improves our options for future races. I assume we will see more of it.

Secondly, Trump demolished political correctness – at least for now – and that might give us more options in dealing with immigration and other thorny problems. 

But I think Hillary Clinton gets my vote for having the biggest accomplishment. And I’ll bet that accomplishment is invisible to you, the same way a magician uses misdirection to render the real trick invisible. I’ll give you the misdirection first.

Hillary Clinton has been transparent in saying that one of the benefits she can bring to the presidency is her gender. As President Obama did for racial perceptions, Clinton can do for gender. It would be a tremendous moment in history to swear in the first woman president. 

That was the misdirection. You missed the actual trick.

The trick is that Hillary Clinton has already accomplished the gender breakthrough. There really isn’t anything left to prove, gender-wise. Any doubts that people have about Clinton are related to her character and track record. Her gender isn’t even in the conversation as a potential negative.

Clinton made that happen.

Sure, you might hear some whispered sexism at parties. There’s always the guy with too many cocktails saying Clinton will have a hot flash and unleash the nuclear arsenal. But that guy is drunk. And people say worse things about Obama a million times a day.

My point is that Hillary Clinton already won the gender war. She removed gender from the conversation about the presidency.

Think about that. 

Hillary Clinton, through her life’s work and achievements, has made the idea of “woman president” almost seem like the past. The young women supporting Bernie Sanders probably don’t think breaking the presidential glass ceiling is even a thing. It feels pre-broken, by Clinton.

When Obama was running for his first term, much of the pundit conversation was about racism and whether or not enough of the other races would support him. But have you heard much in the mainstream media about Clinton’ gender being a negative?

You haven’t. Because it isn’t.

Hillary Clinton did that.

I consider this to be one of history’s greatest accomplishments. Hillary Clinton took gender out of the conversation (except trivially) for the highest office in the land.

Criticize Hillary Clinton for other things, but you have to give her credit for leveling the presidential playing field forever. It might be some time before another woman makes a strong run for the office, but only because there are fewer women in the pipeline. The question of gender-related competence is settled. Now it is about the individual.

Credit Clinton for that improvement in society, whether she wins or loses. The change is permanent. That deserves respect. She has mine, in this one way at least.

My CNN Interview about Trump

My CNN Interview about Trump