Scott Adams's Blog, page 280

Off to Jury Duty

I’m reporting for jury duty selection this morning. I have served a few times, and I recommend it to any citizen who has the opportunity. The experience does a good job of getting you invested in the system, and it makes you appreciate your country a bit more when you see your fellow citizens taking it seriously, which in my experience people do.

But I’m not expecting to serve this time. I will disclose that I’m a trained hypnotist and see what happens. I can’t imagine a lawyer wanting me on a jury. Seems like a good excuse for an appeal if the defendant is found guilty.

It isn’t much of an exaggeration to say the other eleven jurors will be nearly irrelevant if you put me in a quiet room with them and give me several hours of deliberation time. And this is one of those rare cases where I would go full-out on persuasion if I thought a person’s future was involved and I was confident in my opinion. It would feel wrong to do otherwise.

Hypnosis isn’t magic, so I wouldn’t be able to influence crazy people, for example. But the lawyers probably do a good job of filtering out the craziest of the crazies.

Hypnosis and persuasion work best in a controlled environment over time. Jury deliberation is exactly that. And I believe the law requires me to press my point of view with my fellow deliberators, so long as it is honest.

What is your bet? Does a hypnotist get on a jury, or will this defendant get a trial by his “peer”?

A quick Google search turned up nothing.

Humor, Brevity, Virality

This morning I engineered a five-word tweet to go viral on Twitter. I’ll explain the technique.

In this context, viral means I expect a lot of people to retweet it, relative to the size of my Twitter followers. Here is the tweet as it is just starting to pick up retweets:

(If your firewall is blocking the image, it says, “Bad analogies are like corn.”)

I engineered the tweet to have these qualities:

Brief
Funny (clever and recognizable) per the humor formula
Universally identifiable (we have all been there)
Inoffensive to the extreme
Involves human foibles

I could have added an image of corn because images almost always perform better on social media than plain text. But a photo would cause your attention to be spread across too much of your brain, and detract from the beauty of the brevity. I want your brain to generate the image of corn on its own. That’s my sense of how to tickle a brain from the inside, based on experience. A joke works best when you fill in the visuals yourself. (That is also a method of persuasion, Trump-style. The image of corn you provide to yourself will be more perfect, and better-timed, than one I could provide for you.)

The joke in my tweet works best without an image, but people are known to be Skinner-trained to retweet images more often than plain text. This is the sort of thing no one can predict without A-B testing. I favored the joke over the visual, but that might be more bias than engineering.

I hope you enjoy looking under the hood with my writing methods.

Who Will Bill Clinton Vote for?

I was just reading the transcript of Bill Clinton’s interview with Colbert. Based on that text alone, I wonder who Bill Clinton wants to win the presidency. Clinton talked about Trump’s “macho” appeal with the public.

But Clinton didn’t say macho was a bad thing.

Let me give you a hypothetical. Suppose I told you that two people were running for President and only one was macho. You know nothing else about the candidates. You must pick a leader based on that one data point alone.

Who do you pick to deal with ISIS, Congress, Putin, and Iran?

Right. Seventy-percent of the public just voted for macho. Women too.

Keep in mind that Hillary has been using Bill Clinton’s nut-sack as a speed bag since 1998. Bill Clinton is not feeling too macho himself. He’s an ex-president, but also a guy, and also a husband. Rarely has any man been so thoroughly emasculated by a wife in public. (You can say he earned it, but that doesn’t change the point.)

If you believe the new book by Roger Stone – a Trump supporter – Hillary has been a domestic abuser for years. One assumes that sort of accusation is an exaggeration, but you can never be sure by how much. And in any case, the story is out there, and the story alone probably doesn’t make Bill Clinton feel too macho. People will believe the accusations. 

Now imagine that Hillary get elected. That takes some of the luster out of Bill’s presidency. It reminds me of the Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers joke where Astaire was considered the star, but Rogers did her dance moves backwards and on heels. Again, macho is at stake.

And imagine Bill Clinton having to go from his current life – that one assumes is secretly phenomenal and rarely lonely – to being “Mister Mom” in the White House while his powerful wife locks up his chastity cage so he doesn’t embarrass her in front of the press.

If you think Bill Clinton wants Hillary to be president, you are either a woman who doesn’t know anything about men, or not paying attention. A Hillary Clinton presidency would thoroughly ruin Bill Clinton’s happiness. In my opinion, as a spouse-free male who can speak freely, there is not the slightest chance that Bill wants Hillary to be president. And as a trained hypnotist, and a student of linguistics, I would say he confirmed it to Colbert.

But just for fun, take a look at Clinton’s exact words when Colbert asked Bill if had asked Trump to run as a Republican in order to improve Hillary’s chances. Clinton confirms having a phone call with Trump, but he says it wasn’t about “running for office.“

Clinton also said to Colbert, “Yeah, I get credit for doing a lot of things I didn’t do like that,” Clinton said.

Parse that sentence. Clinton doesn’t deny asking Trump to run. All he says is that he often gets credit for doing things like that – that he didn’t do.

Perfectly ambiguous, as intended. No one can accuse him of lying.

Here’s how I think the phone conversation between two Master Wizards of persuasion went. Keep in mind that under the Master Wizard Hypothesis, all Trump needed to know is whether Bill Clinton would use his own wizard skills to keep Trump from winning.

Trump: How are things with the wife?

Clinton: About the same.

Trump: That’s all I need to hear.

That’s how two Master Wizards of persuasion avoid talking about “running for office.”

Obviously I don’t know what is happening inside anyone’s head, or in private conversations. So this is just for fun, and to track the predictive power of the Master Wizard Hypothesis.

The Master Wizard Hypothesis says Bill Clinton will either talk Hillary out of running (because of the email scandal) or campaign for her in an uninspired way. What I predict will NOT happen, is Bill Clinton being fully engaged in her victory.

Look for stories saying Bill Clinton isn’t trying too hard to help his wife get elected.

—

If you read my book now, you have plenty of time to finish it before Christmas, so you can give it as a gift.

—

In Top Tech Blog, now you can harvest electricity from the radio signals in the air. That makes using your metal detector on the beach seem almost like a waste of time.

Does Trump Linguistically Engineer His Insults?

On October 1st, I blogged that Trump was starting to define Rubio as a “rube,” although Trump had not yet used that actual word (as far as I know). 

The human mind automatically connects things that are related. If you tell me a man named Rubio is easily duped (as Trump suggests), the word “rube” automatically pops into my head. When I first made the connection consciously, it felt to me (as a trained hypnotist) that I was experiencing persuasion, not coincidence.

Recently Trump ran a Rubio attack add that portrayed the senator as “little RUBE.” So there you go. Connection complete, but not until you were primed to accept it as something you were already thinking but had not yet found the perfect word to describe. 

I remind you that I am applying the Master Wizard filter on this situation for entertainment only while we see how well it explains the current data and predicts the future. If you want truth, that is probably at a different URL.

The Master Wizard filter says Trump’s insults are deeply engineered, and not random. And an insult that matches an opponents name as well as a personality trait (that Trump assigns) is engineered to be extra-sticky.

Rubio has also improved his wizard game, at least for his responses to Trump. Instead of going after Trump on policy differences (which would be a dry hole) we now see Rubio trying to portray Trump as an angry old man that Rubio likes to annoy just to watch him self-destruct.

Do you see where this is heading?

 Angry old man = “Get off my lawn!” = Trump’s deportation plan

Many of you asked me what would be an effective Linguistic Kill Shot against Trump. One approach would be to reduce Trump’s strong message to a silly absurdity and frame it as…

“Get off my lawn!”

But don’t worry about this linguistic kill shot making it into the campaign and changing history. By mentioning it here I take it off the table. My point is to show you how a linguistic kill shot could be engineered. 

And even this linguistic kill shot might not be enough against someone with Trump’s linguistic judo skills. He would likely embrace the label and reword it to proclaim he is the loudest voice for change, as he successfully did when an interviewer asked if he was a “whiner.”

Narcissistic Accuser Syndrome

The word “narcissist” gets tossed around a lot, especially when Donald Trump is in the news. That word can mean at least three different things, depending on who is saying it. For example, calling someone a narcissist could mean…

1. I don’t know what big words mean, but I use them anyway. (That’s at least 30% of cases.)

Or…

2. The target of the accusation has “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” as defined by the Mayo Clinic to include these traits:

Inflated sense of importance
Deep need for admiration 
Lack of empathy for others
Fragile self-esteem that’s vulnerable to the slightest criticism
Or…

3. The person doing the accusing has “Narcissistic Accuser Syndrome” as I define to have these characteristics:

Dislike of confident, successful people.
Hallucinating that you have the diagnostic skills of a trained psychiatrist.

Hallucinating the ability to determine a stranger’s level of empathy, and their need for admiration, based on limited evidence seen out of context.

Inability to distinguish between a smart operator with a strategy of aggressive response to critics versus a person with fragile self-esteem.

Inability to understand that labeling one individual with an inflated sense of importance and fragile self-esteem at the same time is harder to explain than you want it to be.

A deep desire to rationalize one’s own lack of success by imagining the only way that other people attain it is with the help of some sort of personality disorder.

Did I write this defensive-sounding post because I’m a narcissist? I hope so, because that’s what I strive to be.

I’m a big fan of being admired, assuming I did something worthy. I find the goodwill of others to be one of several sources of personal motivation, and a legitimate one. Am I allowed to make the world a better place and enjoy the fact that others appreciate the effort? That seems like a reasonable deal for everyone. If you do something good for the world, I promise to admire you, and I hope you enjoy the feeling. Maybe it will encourage you to do more good stuff.

I also work continuously to keep my sense of importance as high as possible, for health reasons, for happiness reasons, and for career reasons. That sort of attitude made me think I could become a famous cartoonist despite having no obvious artistic talent and no training whatsoever. I consider my self-inflated sense of importance an asset. It serves me well, often.

Sometimes strangers on the Internet accuse me of having a lack of empathy because I have the ability to compartmentalize like a robot. But the reality is that I can’t even watch sad movies without being emotionally disturbed. If you can watch movies that involve human or animal suffering, and enjoy the experience, I’m not sure that puts you at the top of the empathy list. But compartmentalizing is a good skill to have, and one that I practice.

I am often accused of being thin-skinned because I respond aggressively to critics. Regular readers know my strategy of aggressive response is intended to increase the perceived penalty for unreasonable criticisms.

Does it work?

Gawker, Jezebel, and HuffPo have not put me through the outragism grinder recently. Coincidence? Maybe. But I also think they don’t want me to keep labeling them “bottom-feeders” on a site with high SEO visibility.

If you think criticism bothers me deeply, keep in mind that my explicit business model for this blog involves embarrassing myself publicly and inviting criticism of everything I write. Every day. Good writing should be a little dangerous.

Does anyone want to be a narcissist with me? It’s awesome.

—

Speaking of writing, I wrote a few books. The latest one is the best.

Tells for Cognitive Dissonance (with some Trump flavoring)

When a skilled persuader exerts influence on a large group, people will generally react in one of three ways.

20% Will be heavily influenced right away, and be happy about it.

60% Will be mildly influenced, over time, with repetition.

20% Will be unusually angry, comparing the persuader to evil dictators and the like.

Under the Master Wizard Hypothesis, the folks who are the angriest are having a reaction to the persuasion that violates their self-image, throwing them into cognitive dissonance. The 20% who are easily influenced without anger had no skin in the game, in the sense that they had not yet picked sides.

The tells for Cognitive Dissonance are many. Here are some I haven’t before mentioned.

Tell 1: Wow

When a pundit or stranger on the Internet starts a comment with “Wow,” as if shocked by an opinion, that is a tell for cognitive dissonance. That is anger disconnected from reason. People who have reasons for disagreeing offer them right away, because doing so is the strongest counter-argument. “Wow” usually indicates you are feeling persuasion that violates your self-image as a person with smart opinions.

The “wow” tell is a specific example of…

Tell 2: No specific criticism

When you see objections without reasons, as in “That is the dumbest idea of all time” it is a tell for cognitive dissonance. To be fair, some things are legitimately dumb. So this tell is less conclusive than “wow,” as far as I can tell.

Tell 3: So you’re saying…

When someone restates your persuasive and reasonable point as an absurd point in order to refute it, that’s a tell for cognitive dissonance. Look for a wrongly-restated argument that looks so wrong you think it must be intentional. But it is not always intentional. Often it is cognitive dissonance. 

Tell 4: Analogy Arguments

Analogies are useful for explaining new ideas the first time. But in the realm of debate, they can only make things worse because analogies are messy and subject to interpretation. Rarely does one rely on an analogy as the main argument when reason and data would do the trick.

The classic example is a Hitler analogy (Godwin’s Law). But any absurd analogy is an equally good tell.

Tell 5: Peering Into the Soul of a Stranger

When you hear someone say they can look into a persuader’s soul and see the evil intent – without the benefit of any actual evidence in the real world – that is almost always cognitive dissonance. That usually takes the form of accusations about sexism, racism, narcissism, and greed. Those are all inner thoughts.

—

You might be saying to yourself that what I call cognitive dissonance is plain old stupidity. I suppose it falls under the wide umbrella of stupidity, but it is a special flavor. Regular stupidity stays with you all the time. But the cognitive dissonance type is only activated when your self-image is violated by a persuasive argument.

With that in mind, consider the reactions to Donald Trump’s plans to secure the borders of the country, which is obviously the job of a president. You can dislike Trump’s stated plan (as I do) but when you see folks compare Trump to famous dictators and evil actors, that is usually a tell for dissonance.

Not convinced? 

If you have a friend who opposes a secure border with Mexico, ask that friend for some details of his plan that allows anyone to come in. How’s that plan work? That’s when he might say, “Wow. That’s the sort of question Hitler asked.”

Protecting the United States from foreign threats, both military and economic, is literally the job description of the President. You can hate the wall, and you can hate Trump’s deportation plan (as I do) but it is hard to argue that the president should ignore the office’s primary responsibility of protecting the country from military and economic threats. 

I remind you I am not smart enough to know who would be a good president. I think it all depends what kind of surprises the future holds, and I am not psychic. 

—

And about Trump’s deportation plan, if Trump is consistent with decades of Trumpness, that is just an opening offer. He doesn’t expect to deport those folks. But a good negotiator doesn’t START by conceding.

Ask yourself which is more likely: 1) An experience business person believes he can deport 11 million illegal immigrants and everything will work out fine, or 2) The most famous negotiator on the planet, who negotiates everything, all the time, is making an opening offer he expects to negotiate away.

Why This Tweet Went Viral

You already saw my Robots Read News comic about self-driving cars. This one got more attention than any other tweet I have done. Let’s see why.

1. It is a visual image. Pictures do better than text.

2. It uses three dimensions of humor: Cruel, clever, bizarre

3. No person or group is offended (so it is easy to retweet without fear)

4. Self-driving cars are a hot topic and sexy enough that folks want to be associated with it. Robots are extra-topical these days too. When you combine two headline trends, you usually get something funny.

5. The comic portrays all humans as dumb. That theme always performs well.

6. It is brief and has no sound, so it easy to consume. People can forward it without feeling they are asking much of the recipient.

7. It looks good on mobile devices.

8. It has no sexual or other problematic content, so people can forward it without professional risk.

There are other ways to go viral, but if you hit all of those eight points, you will probably get people’s attention. True viral activity doesn’t often happen because even professionals can’t generate viral content on demand. This comic idea popped into my head while I was thinking of something else and I wrote it down. I doubt I could have started from scratch to build a viral tweet and succeeded. But I did consciously make it conform to the eight points to increase its chances.

—

At Top Tech Blog, a breakthrough in super capacitors could change the world in a big way by replacing traditional batteries. We might be getting close with this.

—

My book is getting a lot of attention lately. It has been out long enough that people are reporting improvements in fitness, weight, careers, and life in general.

#viral

Florida School Board Believes Principal is a Hypno-Witch

Before you read this post, you might want to read my post on why sensational stories such as this are almost always untrue. The context is perfect.

—

In Florida, a school board paid settlements of $200,000 apiece to the families of three students who died after being hypnotized by their principal. (In this context, “after” does not mean immediately after.) Two students committed suicide and a third ran his car off the road after getting a strange look on his face, according to his girlfriend who survived the crash.

The principal in question had hypnotized 75 kids for various reasons. The other 72 kids did not try to kill themselves as far as we know.

You might be wondering what I think of that situation, given that I am a trained hypnotist. Answer: 100% bullshit.

A Florida school board confused hypnosis with witchcraft. Literally. 

Rule number one in hypnosis is that it is impossible to convince people to hurt themselves, or others, with hypnosis. A hypnotized subject is ALWAYS in their normal mind, just relaxed and going with the flow. There is no such thing as a hypnotic state where the subject can’t control himself. If I hypnotize you and hand you a weapon to use on yourself, you will laugh and hand it back, the same as if you were not hypnotized.

Hypnosis can’t convince a subject to harm himself or others. Researchers have tried that very thing and failed on lots of occasions.

The wrinkle in that sort of test is that if I hypnotize you and hand you a gun, you might assume the gun is a toy because no reasonable person would hand you a loaded gun and ask you to use it. So there might be some confusion involved, but no hypnotized subject would consider suicide or murder as a result of hypnosis sessions. That just isn’t a thing.

The principal pleaded no contest, but he knows he is 100% innocent, and indeed was probably going the extra mile to be helpful. You don’t hypnotize that many kids unless the word-of-mouth is good. The principal was probably helping a lot of kids cope. Hypnosis is an excellent tool for that sort of thing.

Three deaths in one high school does seem excessive. But ask yourself what kinds of kids ask adults for mind-related help. I would think the troubled teens would be at the front of the line. It should not be surprising that those 75 kids had more problems than the average. Still, three deaths in a short period does seem like a big coincidence.

But coincidences happen. You don’t hear about them unless you have a principal accused of witchcraft. That is essentially what happened here since only magic would produce the results in question. Hypnosis would not. Ever. And certainly not three times.

Why does the school board suspect hypnosis was part of the problem? Because three deaths in a short window is an unlikely event.

Why do I know the principal is 100% innocent? Because a hypnotist killing three kids is a far less likely event, essentially impossible. People die in clusters every day, by chance. But no hypnotist has ever caused a person to harm himself or others. I can imagine no scenario in which a hypnotist is helping a basketball player learn to relax at the free throw line and accidentally convinces the subject to kill himself next week.

It just isn’t a thing.

You might wonder why a skilled hypnotist would walk away from this sort of situation instead of hypnotizing the board to give him a parade and a big raise. The answer is that too many people are involved. It is an uncontrolled environment. His skills would be useless against the angry villagers with pitchforks, and it sounds like that was the situation. In his situation, I too would have pled no contest and walked away. The money is being paid by the school district, not the principal.

The ex-principal’s name is George Kenney. I only mention his name for the benefit of search engines. If you are reading this because you are considering hiring Mr. Kenney, or you wonder if he is safe around kids, let me say as clearly as I can that he was a scapegoat for a coincidental set of tragedies. Hypnosis – by its very nature – could not have been part of the problem. Mr. Kenney is a victim in this case. I say this with certainty. 

Iran Bans Further Negotiations with U.S. to Avoid “Influence”

Iran’s Supreme Leader banned further negotiations with the United States because he wants to avoid “influence.”

That’s the sort of thing you say when you are dealing with a Master Wizard and you notice the influence is working.

No one looks for a solution to a problem they don’t have.

Bombs are always the biggest headlines. But this is the real story.

My Explanation of Trump’s Persuasion Skills for Reason.com

If you have been following my posts about Trump’s persuasion skills, you might like to hear me pull it all together in this short video clip at Reason.com.

I love how they edited and produced it. Nicely done.