Scott Adams's Blog, page 272

Master Persuader Scorecard Update - Clinton Top?

On December 13th I used the Master Persuader filter to predict that Clinton had topped in the polls compared to Trump and would start drifting down.

The latest national poll shows Trump and Clinton in a near statistical tie for the general election.

One poll is not credible on its own, but it is consistent with prediction.

So far, the Master Persuader filter has accurately predicted…

- Trump’s “inexplicable” rise in the polls (I predicted it in August)

- The Jeb Bush top (because “low energy” – everyone knows now that the linguistic kill shot worked, but I predicted it first)

- The Fiorina top (after she paired her own image with a dead baby)

- The Carson top (after Trump did his famous belt-buckle speech)

- The Clinton top (after Trump noted how many women her policies have allegedly killed)

So far, I have made no wrong predictions under this filter. And keep in mind that I am not simply making yes/no predictions; I’m predicting when as well. Much harder.

Keep in mind that smart people are still favoring what I call the Lucky Hitler explanation of Trump’s success. Under that filter, Trump is just loud, and racist, and in the right place at the right time. Can’t rule out that explanation yet. I don’t know what is in the man’s head. 

Also keep in mind that all of this is for entertainment. I don’t endorse Trump or anyone else.

The Master Persuader Filter and Trump’s Schlong

If you are following the U.S. presidential campaign, you know that Donald Trump recently said Hillary Clinton got “schlonged” in her last campaign attempt against Obama. According to the standard 2D analysis on the news, this is the sort of vulgar gaffe that should hurt a candidate.

But you might be wondering if “schlonged” was a deliberate and clever move by a Master Persuader or just another in a long list of Trump vulgarities. Let’s look under the hood and see if the engine is purring or it is full of squirrels.

Here’s how I see it:

1. Schlonged has just enough deniability built into it (similar to saying someone “sucks”) that Trump could almost-sort-of-but-not-quite explain it away. That “almost-but-not quite” quality makes it news. That is precisely how one would engineer a sticky story. A future president (and potential role model) who uses vulgar terms is a “man bites dog” story with just the right amount of “maybe not” to keep people jabbering.

2. Schlonged has what I call the “Osso Bucco effect.“ When you hear about a pork dish called osso bucco, you have to repeat its name several times in your head. You almost can’t resist. Same with schlonged. That looks engineered to me. In hypnosis, this is a variant of the O.J. defense “If the glove fits, you must acquit.” The science of persuasion says a rhyme is more persuasive than a non-rhyme, probably because you repeat it several times in your head, like schlonged.

3. A strong majority of humans love schlongs. Men love schlongs because we have them. Lots of women like them too. Schlongs are not politically correct, but when it comes to popular body parts, they are in the top two. From a rational perspective, using a vulgar-sounding expression is a mistake. But the Master Persuader filter only cares about the reflexive associations you make in your mind. And on the reflex level, schlongs are a base-clearing home run. 

4. Schlongs also make you think of Bill Clinton and how hard Hillary must have tried to get a lock on his schlong. That doesn’t help her.

This past week, Trump used his schlong to absorb all the energy from the media while creating an association that is positive for him and negative for his opponent.

Conclusion: Schlonged is not just engineered; it is perfectly engineered. It might have been spontaneously engineered while he formed the sentence, but that is within his skill range. I’ve watched him engineer new and persuasive sentences during live interviews and he does it instantly. 

Also, keep an eye on the empty space. The empty space is the mistakes Trump should have made by now but has not. As an artist (by occupation, not talent) I always look for the blank space. Trump is creating a boatload of blank space where you think his mistakes should be. In a way, that non-story is the biggest story. And so far, only the Master Persuader filter explains Trump’s “baffling” blank space and his consistency in the polls.

The other explanation for all of this is that Trump has gotten lucky twenty-seven times in a row (or whatever) in a way that looks exactly like engineered persuasion. In other words, we can’t rule out the Lucky Hitler Hypothesis because we don’t know what is in the man’s head, and sometimes lucky things happen. That’s why it’s called luck.

Here I remind new readers that I am not endorsing Trump or anyone else. I’m not smart enough to know who would do the best job of president. They all look qualified to me. My interest is Trump’s persuasion skills.

Bonus Thought: Pay attention to how many times the pundits are using the word “persuader” to describe what a president should be. Did you hear that word as often in other campaigns? If you see more of it, that’s a tell for persuasion.

Target Practice for Robots

In the long run, the so-called ISIS Caliphate is destined to become a walled-in training facility where the major military powers test their new weapons on live combatants. Wars sometimes have expiration dates, but training is forever. Expect the Caliphate to be a permanent war zone, by design.

Along those lines, see Putin’s comment about Russia’s escalation in Syria. He said, “It’s hard to imagine a better exercise (for Russian forces). So we can train there for a long time without any serious harm to our budget.”

Thus, we remove any doubt that Putin is a Master Persuader. He literally referred to ISIS as target practice. That is exactly the way a Master Persuader would approach it. 

Expect Trump to do the same if elected. The two wizards would combine to frame the conflict as target practice, and not a war of religion. ISIS’ enduring contribution to world peace will be Russia and the United States on the same side, practicing. 

I can easily imagine a teen signing up for ISIS and the chance to change the world. But does anyone sign up to be the replacement targets at the all-robot firing range? 

We will find out.

If you want to kill an idea, you have to go after it directly. That’s what Putin is doing with his comments about using Syria for military training. Compare that to the discussions on this topic in the United States; our debates go like this:

Person 1: We should ban Muslim immigration because some of them might be terrorists.

Person 2: How can you imply that all Muslims are terrorists???!!!

Person 1: I did not imply that. I said some might be. And you haven’t even disagreed with me.

Person 2: Go to hell, racist.

So, we should at least consider the Putin approach. It changes the frame. 

Once we get the Caliphate walled-up, we can dump the Guantanamo Bay leftovers there too. Compare that to Plan A, in which we release them and they kill us.

Walls: Is there anything they can’t do?

A Deeply Unscientific Test of Your Political Bias (Trump Persuasion Series)

The normal view of human beings is that we are mostly rational, but sometimes we get a bit emotional or crazy. My so-called Moist Robot Hypothesis on reality says the reverse, that we are irrational nearly all the time and that we rationalize our decisions after the fact. That view comes from my experience as a trained hypnotist.

I know that most of you don’t completely buy into the Moist Robot Hypothesis, so I devised an unscientific test to rattle your confidence in your own rational processes.

I went into my garage and spent approximately two minutes selecting tools that represent the main political candidates for U.S. president. See how quickly you can tell which tool represents which candidate. My hypothesis is that those of you following American politics will easily map the tools to the candidates. No real “thinking” required. The pattern matching (bias) will be immediate.

But before you start, remember to observe your own mental processes as they happen, to see if the “thinking” happens before or after you decide which tool is which candidate. I’m betting you’ll decide first and think second. See if you feel it happening that way.

From the image below, identify the tool that maps to: Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Carson, Clinton, Fiorina, Christie, Paul.

My hypothesis predicts that you laughed when you saw the huge drill next to the other tools because you instantly knew it was the Trump tool. No thinking required. But I’ll bet you started feeling your rational mind kick-in to identify Cruz and Rubio. And that’s my point.

Trump is operating on the reflex part of your brain, and intentionally. The other candidates are appealing to your reason. That’s the phenomenon I saw back in the summer, and why I predicted Trump will win in a landslide. He isn’t winning the game so much as playing an entirely different one.

You know Trump’s babbling, repetitive, content-free, happy-talk? Every bit of it is engineered persuasion. While the other candidates talk statistics and reason, Trump speaks to your emotions. He knows people will pick the strong, decisive, optimistic leader over the candidate that agrees with their own views. We are wired that way. Reagan didn’t win over so many Democrats because his arguments were strong. He won them by emotion. After the fact, people assumed his policies must have been brilliant too. (Cognitive Dissonance.)

Yesterday there was a story making the rounds that said Trump’s polling numbers might underestimate the strength of his support. The observation they make is that folks support Trump in greater numbers when no one is watching them do it. When a pollster calls on the phone, people are less likely to say they support Trump, out of social embarrassment, the researchers suppose. Trump does better with anonymous online polls. The Moist Robot Hypothesis takes this idea one level deeper and says Trump has sent a big portion of the country into cognitive dissonance of the type we have not seen since Reagan. By that hypothesis, people are holding two competing thoughts:

1. I can’t be a Trump supporter! Noooooooo!!!! I can’t be that person!

2. He keeps saying things I secretly agree with.

When folks go into the polling booth in November, and no one is watching, they are likely to be choosing from a candidate who promises to keep their freedoms and dignity intact versus a candidate who is (in their irrational minds) more likely to kill their enemies and keep U.S. citizens alive.

Predicted result: Trump Landslide

I will add to my predictions under the Master Persuader filter and say the polling on the final day of the campaign will do a terrible job of predicting the result. It might get the direction right by then, but not the margin of the win.

—

I wrote a book that is a thoughtful gift for someone who is trying to figure out how life works. Reviewers seem to like it.

Funniest Pundits

My favorite pundits this election are Diamond and Silk. This tweet had me laughing all morning. It only works because of their comic sensibilities. Look at the perfection of the photo expression and body language. I would love to know how many pictures they took before they got that one.

I don’t think this is luck. These two have skills.

And Then This Happened (Trump Persuasion Series)

I don’t even know how to categorize this article in Salon except to say it fits the Master Persuader prediction of a coming Trump landslide. It might blow your mind a little, considering the source.

Recently, Huffington Post did an awkward about-face and announced it was moving its Trump coverage from the entertainment section to whatever they call news over there. That had to hurt. The Master Persuader filter saw that coming since August.

In stark contrast to Huffington Post, someone smart is running Salon these days. I’m seeing a lot of strong writing out of them lately, whether you agree with it or not.

Robots Read News - About Hitler’s Testicles

In the news, scientists confirm that Hitler had only one normal testicle. So Christmas came early for humorists all over the world.

I’d like to get a jump on the lazy comedy writers that are sleeping late. Which one of these jokes should I tweet?

(If your firewall is blocking images, only the best one will be on Twitter, and later, so sorry about that.)

This next comic was edited per your comments. The old third panel was a slippery slope punchline (with a typo). For the writers following along at home, I would not have written this updated punchline, below, on my own because it seems more biased than clever. So here, for your reading pleasure, I remove my ego from the equation and give you what you asked for.

Cartooning Equipment

Here’s how cartoonists work these days. My setup is a Wacom Cintiq 27HD, Photoshop, Mac laptop.

Photo: Savannah Miles

If your firewall is blocking, see here on Twitter.

I also write books. Most of them are good holiday gifts. And don’t forget your Dilbert day-to-day box calendar for 2016.

Robots Read News about the Sanders Campaign Accessing Clinton Voter Data

You can see the image here on Twitter if your firewall is blocking it.

The full story on Business Insider.

The Master Persuader Filter on Michael Moore

I appreciate anyone’s call to freedom and equal treatment, but I’m going to rank Michael Moore’s “We are all Muslims” protest movement as the least-likely-to-work idea of all time.

Logically, I totally get the point. So on the 2D level of reality it makes perfect sense. But on the 3D level, where all that matters is how people feel, this feels like a non-starter to me. That’s what the Master Persuader argument says.

If the future proves me wrong about this, feel free to ignore 100% of anything else I’ve ever said. 

I borrowed this image from his page. I don’t think he’ll mind.

Again, I appreciate Moore’s sentiments, and agree with the principle of equal treatment. So I am happy to link to Moore’s page. But as protest movements go, this looks like a one-legged table to me.

Maybe I can get behind this if Moore puts a body-count estimate on his preference for open immigration. I already said it was worth a thousand dead Americans over ten years (if there is no other option) to preserve the principle of equal treatment for another hundred years. That’s what an opinion looks like – tradeoffs considered. (Yes, I know non-citizens have no rights. But how we treat them defines us.)

I doubt we can get the risk below a thousand dead in ten years, but I’ll let Homeland Security or someone who understands the vetting process tell me the actual risk. I doubt my price can be met.

I haven’t heard Moore’s actual opinion yet because he focuses on the benefits (freedom and equality) without addressing his best guess on how much that might cost in dead Americans. So I agree with the half-an-opinion Moore expresses, as I also value equal treatment as a base standard for calling ourselves good Americans.

But I wouldn’t risk a million American lives to support the principle of 100% equal-treatment (of non-citizens) if I could get 99% at minimal risk while working toward 100% over time.

Does anyone else have a full opinion on this topic, as I do, or are the rest of you at half-an-opinion like Moore?