Scott Adams's Blog, page 278

Cows: Our Greatest Enemies

I hate cows.

My uncle owned a dairy farm. My siblings and I often worked on that farm. My chores included shoveling cow manure, cleaning the milk storage tanks, and herding the cows. One time I befriended a calf and gave it a cute name. A few weeks later my grandmother served it to me for dinner. It wasn’t the best way to hear the news. 

I will always remember the day my brother and I were invited to watch the hog slaughter. My uncle slit each hog’s necks in front of us and we watched the hogs scream and bleed out.

I’m a vegetarian now (mostly) but not because of that childhood farming horror. I don’t digest meat well. I tell you this background so you understand my bias.

I recently watched a documentary called Cowspiracy. Leonardo DiCaprio executive produced it. The filmmakers are vegans, so take their point of view with the usual skepticism. The film’s claim is that science supports their notion that perhaps half of the problem with climate change is caused by livestock flatulence and the decimation of the rain forest for livestock farming.

The more interesting claim is that the cow-fart portion of climate change is the type that can be quickly reversed. Once the cows are gone, the gases dissipate relatively quickly. The film claims that even if we stopped using all carbon fuels for transportation, the chemistry of the atmosphere is such that we would not get a meaningful improvement in a short time frame. But getting rid of livestock has a quick benefit, they say.

According to the documentary, it’s either the cows (and other livestock) or us. If we keep eating animals, and the animals keep turbo-charging climate change, we’re all deeply screwed.

The movie suggests that Big Meat might kill people for mentioning this topic. So if I die under suspicious circumstances, please reduce your meat consumption. Karma demands it.

One assumes the Cowspiracy film has some bias. And I expect that critics are questioning the science and assumptions in the film. I’ll let you rip the documentary apart in the comments. But I think the basic premise that livestock is a big contributor to climate change is true. Fact-check me on that. 

This week we heard that cured meats cause cancer. Sheesh.

Now add the economics of using a zillion acres of land to feed cows instead of humans. That can’t be a good use of resources in a crowded world. 

I would like to avoid a debate on the benefits of a vegetarian diet, as I find that unproductive in this sort of forum. But I am interested to know if any of you are meat-eaters and also climate change worriers. I don’t see how you can be both, assuming the Cowspiracy folks are right, or somewhat right.

Is there anyone reading this blog who is both worried about climate change and also a meat-eater? If so, how do you rationalize it?

P.S. It was nice knowing you.

Robots Read News - About Economists and Astrologists

If your corporate firewall is being a total Virgo and blocking the image, try my Twitter feed here.

Trump’s Town Hall Performance - Give Him a Grade

I just watched a video of Matt Lauer interviewing Donald Trump in front of a live audience in New Hampshire. The audience had some questions too. If you have been enjoying my Master Persuader series about Trump, you … have … to … see … this.

I remind you that I don’t know who would do the best job as president. I am not that smart. I am only interested in Trump’s persuasion techniques. I hope you can learn something from this.

Let me call out some of points of interest for readers of this blog.

Negotiating Positions: Pay attention to Matt Lauer’s first question about whether Trump is taking extreme positions for negotiating purposes, as Trump says he does in his book. (One example of an extreme position that might be a negotiating stance is deporting 11 million people.) See what Trump says.

Linguistic Judo: My favorite part was near the end, when a young man challenged Trump for not having enough details in his plans. Trump agreed he didn’t have details and explained to the young apprentice how the real world works. You could almost hear the kid’s head snap into pro-Trump mode. It was masterful persuasion down to the final smile and nod. The kid had accused Trump of being an empty suit and within 15 seconds Trump had redefined the situation as an experienced business person explaining something to a kid. That isn’t impressive until you think about how many ways that could have gone wrong.

Expedite: Listen for the word “expedite” when Trump defends his plan to deport 11 million people. Can you think of a better way to expedite than the temporary embassy approach?

Filter Fence: When Trump discusses Syrian refugees, he suggests building a safe zone in what was Syria. You might call that safe zone a squalid refugee camp of the future. But if your president happens to be a real estate developer too, I would expect to see a new city that is fabulous(ish), located inside some sort of filter fence.

Energy Focus: When Trump doesn’t like a particular question, watch how much energy he brings to the distraction. His distraction is so high-energy and interesting that you almost forgive him for ignoring the question. Most pros avoid tough questions by going with the boring, safe answer. Everyone hates that move and it taints our impression of the weasel that is avoiding the question. Trump avoids questions too, but he immediately takes you somewhere interesting, with high energy. You might forget the question, or you might remember but still appreciate the ride. Emotionally, you enjoy it, even if your rational brain is protesting.

Systems Versus Goals: Does Trump emphasize goals or systems? (That question only makes sense if you read my book on the topic.) Hint: “Great” is not a goal.

Niceness: Watch Trump improve his likability. He talks about love, protecting women, loving Hispanics, and being a nice guy. He didn’t close the sale, but he made it clear he plans to do just that because it is his main weakness in the polls. He has the sense of humor and the personal history to persuade us over time. He’ll just keep tapping the likability button until you forget why you didn’t like him last week.

Prediction

I predict a sharp increase in Trump’s likability within the next month. This prediction is based on the Master Persuader Hypothesis and Trump’s direct statement that he plans to improve his numbers on likability.

I say Trump has the tools of persuasion to get it done. If I am right, pundits will express surprise when his likability spikes up.

Expect to see a “Save the cat” moment within the next month. Trump is likely to spot an organic opportunity for unexpected kindness and jump on it. And when the press cries “fake” you can expect stories from Trump’s friends and family saying he does that kind of awesome thing all the time, but never talks about it. 

Most pundits still believe that the more we see of Trump, the less we will like him. I predict the opposite, based on his skills as a persuader.

—

On the same topic, I recommend Brendon Marotta’s clever blog post that compares the likability of Trump and a few other candidates based on screenplay standards. I wish I had written it. Well done. 

And Scott Alexander explains what the polls say (or don’t) about Trump’s support among minority groups. Fascinating.

How a Hypnotist Would Solve ISIS

You can’t bomb an idea to death. So how do you ever defeat the idea that is ISIS?

To kill an idea, you need a hypnotist, or someone skilled in the art of persuasion. I’ll describe one way to do it. I do not expect any of the candidates to favor this approach. So what follows is not a policy suggestion so much as an example of how a trained hypnotist would kill an idea.

[As always, don’t take cartoonists too seriously. In this blog we kick around new ideas for entertainment. New readers of this blog need to know I am a trained hypnotist.]

A hypnotist would start by defining ISIS in a way that is true (enough) but provides some sort of psychological advantage. For example, you could start by defining the ISIS brand of Islam as “historical” as opposed to modern. That might not be the right world, but you get the idea. We want a label that is fresh (such as “low-energy” or “nice”) so we can imbue it with the qualities we want. In this model, we stop using the old language of “religious extremists” and similar labels because the old words have not helped us enough.

Then we A-B test historical Islam versus modern Islam to see which one does best.

The way you A-B test “historical” Islam is by first putting a wall around the ISIS caliphate, which means a combination of drones, mines, fences, moats, and whatever works. Neighboring countries will do the heavy lifting on the borders. They have the money and the incentive to keep ISIS out.

Some of you will say walls never work. And that is true if you are speaking in military terms. A wall won’t stop an army in the long run. But this wall would not be built to stop an army. Nor would it stop every individual with bad intent. It doesn’t need to.

We are trying to kill an idea with this wall. The wall would exist to define the territory where the idea will be tested. In this context, the wall can be a little bit porous and still work okay.

Once the border around the caliphate is mostly secure, we declare that “historical Islam” is on one side of the wall and modern Islam is (mostly) everywhere else. Instead of saying we want to kill all folks who subscribe to this “historical” brand of ISIS Islam, we say we want to see how their world thrives compared to ours. So our plan is to leave the Caliphate alone and see how they do.

Here’s the best part of the plan: Over time, our stated objective would be to drain from the caliphate all technology that was invented or manufactured by heathens. The ISIS-controlled caliphate would be left with an “historical” version of Islam. That would be our gift to them. We’re just trying to help.

We could remove modern transportation options from ISIS by bombing oil refineries and keeping borders sealed. I hope we can someday use drones to jam satellite signals over selected areas as well. Eventually all electric power plants would be removed from the Caliphate, and their electronic devices would become worthless.

But that isn’t enough. We also need to provide massive amounts of pre-modern farming supplies, food, and medical supplies, so the innocent population can eat, and also to reinforce the image that we are helping ISIS get to their “historical” version of Islam. 

For example, we might airdrop plows and seeds and other early farming implements. And all of it should have a label that says we are supporting ISIS in its plan to live a pre-modern version of Islam. I would go so far as to provide copies of the Koran – lots of them – with no edits and no surprises. We might include a cover letter explaining our helpfulness and our desire to let the Caliphate thrive under its own set of rules. 

The leaders of ISIS will have a hard time convincing the locals that the countries giving them free farming supplies are the enemy.

Once we create a “digital jail” for ISIS, where no one can use modern technology to communicate, and almost no one can leave or enter, we will also control their access to news. And that’s what you need to kill an idea. 

Obviously we would need to be proactive about allowing innocents to leave the Caliphate. And by innocents, I mean women and small kids. The men of fighting age probably have to stay, so they can kill whatever is left of ISIS when the time comes.

The basic idea I am proposing is to switch from enemy mode (killing humans) to helpful mode (removing heathen technology). Instead of saying we want to end ISIS, say we want to give them a chance to show the world they are right. Just as soon as they give up their heathen-made technology.

If you want to kill an idea, you have to go after the idea directly. And the best way to kill an idea is with a friendly embrace and a bright light. 

Trump says he wants to put a wall around ISIS and bomb their oil refineries. That’s how a Master Persuader approaches this sort of thing. 

Talking Like a Fourth-Grader (Part of my Trump Persuasion Series)

You probably saw one of several articles describing a study that says Donald Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level. Your first reaction might have been to chuckle at his lack of verbal intelligence. 

I was laughing too. But if you have been reading this blog lately, you know I was laughing for a different reason. You and I have a front row seat to a movie that Aaron Sorkin hasn’t even written yet. I’ll outline it for you. 

Act One: It is the summer of 2015. We see dumb-old-Donald Trump being a babbling buffoon, full of hot air and insults, running for president as usual. In a comic twist, a study indicates that Trump literally speaks at a fourth-grade level. Clearly we are dealing with an idiot. And yet his popularity increases.

In the B-story, we listen to two characters make an analogy to Ronald Reagan’s second term. Mental health experts say Reagan showed signs of cognitive decline. We are led to believe a Trump presidency would give the United States a second president with impaired mental function.

Meanwhile, rogue nations are testing nuclear weapons. The stakes are high!

Act Two: No one saw it coming, but Trump’s popularity starts to grow. His simple language – which we are sure is nothing but bluster and branding – is somehow, inexplicably, catching on with the public. Pundits, desperate for an explanation of Trump’s success, say the public wants an outsider this year. Maybe that’s it. 

Trump dominates in the polls. The media hates him for being anti-intellectual (unlike them) and for bullying the news outlets throughout the campaign. 

The media universally predicts that Trump’s idiocy will become transparent in time, and a traditional candidate will emerge to win the presidency. It always happened like that in the past. 

At the end of Act Two, Trump wins the presidency in a landslide. The press is catatonic. Pundits proclaim the country is doomed.

Act Three: Trump, the idiot, now has to actually govern. The world is going to hell on all fronts and the President of the United States is mentally incompetent thanks to some combination of ego disorder and willful ignorance. This is the unsolvable third-act problem. The entire world is at risk. Catastrophic failure is assured.

In a foreshadowing scene, an expert on persuasion explains to another character that sometimes simple language is intentional. Most public speakers aim for a sixth-grade level because that is the most persuasive level at which one can speak without sacrificing ego.

But is talking below the sixth grade level even more persuasive? 

Yes, says the expert in the movie. It could be. But you never see it tried in the real world because only a person with no ego could pull it off. Everyone would think that person is a fool for speaking in such simple sentences.

In the final scene of the movie, we see Trump behind closed doors, talking to his wife. The topic is not important. We simply observe a husband and wife having a conversation.

At a college level of speaking. 

Credits roll.

You’d watch that movie. I predict that someday you will.

I remind you that I am not smart enough to know who would be a good president. I write about the Master Persuader Hypothesis so you can compare its predictive powers to the standard view of Trump. This is for entertainment only.

—

For more on persuasion, start by understanding our Moist Robot nature as I describe it in my book. Or see the entire Persuasion Reading List I compiled for you.

How Persuasion Hides

When you study hypnosis, and the art of persuasion in general, you learn that a person practicing at the highest level can appear a fool, babbling lots of feel-good words and ignoring science, data, and what you are sure is common sense.

You probably recognize that I am stealing that concept from Arthur C. Clarke’s idea that “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Same idea.

To put that in simple language, your dog thinks you are crazy for tapping that thing on the wall every time you walk into a dark room because obviously the light is going to come on anyway. It always does, at the same time you tap that thing, so why waste your time, idiot?

My hypothesis on Donald Trump is that his so-called clown act is a baffling combination of humor (for the sake of humor as well as persuasion) combined with breathtaking persuasive technique. 

For the sake of balance, I acknowledge that the evil clown hypothesis about Trump – in which he is nothing but a populist idiot that hates every immigrant he does not marry – is still alive. That’s why I like to make predictions so you can compare the Evil Clown interpretation to the Master Persuader hypothesis. 

(Commenters rightly complained that “master wizard” was a terrible name for the hypothesis.)

Anyway, today’s lesson is blank space.

Name some mistakes Trump has made in the realm of persuasion since the start of summer. 

You will be tempted to criticize Trump’s policy proposals, or his strategies for election. You might even believe you can see into his soul and detect deep problems and evil motives. But do you see any mistakes he is making within the field of persuasion?

In earlier posts I described a number of persuasion techniques Trump is using to great effect. But if you focus on that stuff, you miss the far bigger picture.

The far bigger picture is that he has been doing it for several months without an error that I can detect. He is tap-dancing through minefields with a blindfold on. It is dazzling. This is once-in-your-lifetime stuff and I hope you can enjoy it as such, no matter what you think of policy.

I am not smart enough to know who would be the best president, or what policies will work best. But I do have good vision on the persuasion topic and I would hate for you to miss the full show.

The Case for a Trump Landslide (Part 1)

The latest poll out of Iowa shows Carson ahead of Trump. And you know what that means?

It means Iowa is about to become irrelevant. Here I am assuming evangelicals will band together to give Carson the win in Iowa before Trump goes on to run the table everywhere else.

Keep in mind that if Carson wins the Republican nomination, and Clinton picks a young and appealing VP running mate, Republicans who back Carson are potentially looking at 16 more years of Democratic presidents and full liberal control of the Supreme Court. Iowa might want to make a pro-life point by supporting Carson, but I doubt Republicans in general want to bet on the horse that is the “nicest” but runs the slowest in a race against Clinton.

A lot of things became irrelevant this election cycle.

Old-guard Republican leadership became irrelevant after Trump emerged and rewrote the platform. Boehner literally quit and ran away. 

The Huffington Post moved Trump to the entertainment section and sealed their reputation as a useless wart on society. 

We all got to watch Trump domesticate FOX News, CNN,  and now CNBC. If Trump wins the presidency, every pollster and every pundit (except me) is wrong to the point of irrelevancy. 

Hillary Clinton joined the bandwagon of destruction by declaring her gender an important selling point for a job, thus leaving both her candidacy and the reputation of modern feminism in tatters.

I assume none of you saw any of that coming. And now you don’t believe Trump can win in a landslide. I will make that case over the next few blog posts. It will be more fun to watch the tumblers fall into place in slow motion. 

You already expect Trump to be favored in the realm of economics. He wins that matchup easily, say the polls. 

You probably also expect his tough-guy persona, his negotiating skills, and his attacks on Clinton’s record to make him the top choice for foreign affairs. The polls already bear that out.

And in a recent post I described how Trump is setting up the immigration issue to be a third-act miracle that he solves without any mass deportation. So expect the immigration obstacle to melt aways because that is already in the script (according to my prediction).

Today I want to talk about guns.

What would it take for the United States to make progress on gun control while maintaining the right to bear arms? Well, top of the list, you have to beat the NRA into submission. History tells us that democrats are unlikely to win that fight. 

If you want to take on the NRA, you need a politician who is pro-gun. Only a real gun-owner has credibility in that conversation. And you want the kind of gun-owner who has self-defense in mind, as opposed to hunting. That gives you the most credibility.

To fight the power of the NRA, you might want a politician who turned his own political party into his personal bitch because they didn’t agree with him. You might want the sort of politician who can control the news cycle and dominate the major players in it. You might want the sort of person who puts success above party loyalty and dogma. You might need a world-class negotiator. You might even need the best persuader the country has ever seen. You might need the kind of politician who can label his opponents so hard it can never be washed off. You might want the only politician in the race who would not be owned by lobbyists. You might want the sort of politician who is willing to throw his colleagues in Congress under the bus if they disagree.

If you want some sensible gun control, only one candidate has any chance of getting it for you. If you believe Trump won’t try to improve things with guns, I respect that opinion. But I think you would agree he is the only one in the race capable of making a change in that area. My take on Trump is that he is not dogmatic. I believe he would favor any law that seemed practical and did not dismantle the second amendment.

So would Clinton. The difference is that she would have no power to get it done. If you want progress on gun control, only one candidate offers even a glimmer of hope.

I will end on a reminder that this blog is for entertainment. I have no idea who would be the best president. I am not that smart. I write about Trump because his persuasion skills are the best I have seen. The gun issue needs a persuader.

Bias alert: I am pro-gun because I weigh 147 pounds and I want to preserve the option of shooting people who are bigger than me. Sometimes they need it.

—

Yes, I did write a book. Thanks for asking.

Master Wizard Filter - Netanyahu?

Sometimes the world seems so small.

See this article from The Times of Israel. (I noticed it was sending traffic here.)

The Alpha in the Room

We humans like to sort ourselves into categories that are based on how our bodies are different. For example, we see the world as men versus women, and one ethnic group versus another, or old versus young. And we organize our political views around those filters. That made sense throughout history when our bodies defined us and the law was built around those differences. But in 2015, I propose that the most useful categories for grouping people is the distinction between alpha and beta personalities.

Consider the folks running for President. In my subjective opinion, the alphas in the race are:

Trump

Clinton

Fiorina

I won’t list the betas by name, but I think you would agree that the rest of the field has a low alpha vibe. A number of the men on the Republican side have stereotypical feminine mannerisms (or low-T as one wag said). But gender is not the issue here, as evidenced by my alpha list being mostly female. Alpha seems to be one of those qualities you know when you see it. Let’s call it a natural leadership impulse, or ambition.

Each of us will define alpha and beta differently because there is a subjective element to it. I asked an alpha friend to define what an alpha male was in her view. She went on to describe a servant role, and by that I mean she defined her perfect alpha male partner based on the services he could provide to her – earning money, fixing things, doing housework, and protecting her from harm. She wanted him to “take the lead” on things such as planning vacations, but obviously he had to plan only things she wanted.

Now you know why I label my friend an alpha. She can’t even imagine a life where she isn’t at least defining the option set. Nor should she. And that’s my point. 

My observation is that nearly all alpha personalities do well in this world, in part because other alphas are looking for them and mentoring them, no matter what gender or ethnicities are involved. One way you can tell an alpha from a beta is that alphas get job offers even when there is no job. When I encounter an alpha personality, my first instinct is to make a job offer and then figure out what the job is later. Alphas make things happen, whether they are male or female, purple or green, old or young.

Now for the fun part.

Can you label yourself alpha or beta? To keep things simple, let’s say an alpha is a personality who wants (and often expects) to be in charge of every situation. If you would enjoy the job of CEO, for example, despite the stress and hours, you are probably an alpha.

How many alphas do we have today?

—

Yes, I did write a book. Thanks for asking.

Robots Read News - about Trump and Jeb

If your firewall is being an obstructionist, see the comic on Twitter at @ScottAdamsSays.