Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter

by Scott Adams

The common worldview, shared by most humans, is that there is one objective reality, and we humans can understand that reality through a rigorous application of facts and reason. This view of the world imagines that some people have already achieved a fact-based type of enlightenment that is compatible with science and logic, and they are trying to help the rest of us see the world the “right” way. As far as I can tell, most people share that interpretation of the world. The only wrinkle with that worldview is that we all think we are the enlightened ones. And we assume the people who disagree with us just need better facts, and perhaps better brains, in order to agree with us. That filter on life makes most of us happy—because we see ourselves as the smart ones—and it does a good job of predicting the future, but only because confirmation bias (our tendency to interpret data as supporting our views) will make the future look any way we want it to look, within reason.

That is classic deal making. You start with a big first demand and negotiate back to your side of the middle.

the intentional wrongness persuasion play over and over, and almost always to good effect. The method goes like this: Make a claim that is directionally accurate but has a big exaggeration or factual error in it. Wait for people to notice the exaggeration or error and spend endless hours talking about how wrong it is. When you dedicate focus and energy to an idea, you remember it. And the things that have the most mental impact on you will irrationally seem as though they are high in priority, even if they are not. That’s persuasion.

The ideas that you think about the most are the ones that automatically and irrationally rise in your mental list of priorities.

Master Persuaders move your energy to the topics that help them, independent of facts and reason.

As far as I can tell, the most frequent tells for cognitive dissonance on Twitter take this form: [A mocking word or acronym] + [an absurd absolute] or . . . [A mocking word or acronym] + [a personal insult that is more aggressive than the situation seems to warrant]

Regarding the first tell, when people do not have rational reasons for their views—and you help them achieve that realization—they typically and immediately hallucinate that your argument is some kind of absurd absolute instead of whatever reasonable thing you actually said. That instant hallucination provides the critic something with which they can easily disagree.