Tag Archives: Scott Adams

History Rhymes, by Scott Adams

This short video is noteworthy because Scott Adams, to his credit, is admitting he was wrong about something important. How often does that happen? From Adams:

No, Mr. Boomer We’ve Run Out of God Pills, by Tom Luongo

We’ve run out of road down which we can continue to kick the can. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:

Consider this an open message to The Davos Crowd. I can see you using the pandemic of COVID-19 to run the table on holding onto power while your institutions fail.

It is obvious that by either design or acting opportunistically this pandemic has become your casus belli on us, to usher in a new world based on total surveillance, total compliance and control.

You’ve used fear over a bug to induce mass hysteria at a level that is difficult to contain. After more than two generations of marginalizing the masculine and amplifying the feminine and the Progressive deification of trained experts which you turned into ‘believe all women’ to push identity politics has reached its zenith.

This has now reverted back into ‘believe all smart people’ in the minds of your useful idiots who retweet exponential growth curves they don’t understand and take as gospel truth your antipathy to curing this virus.

Thanks to this mass induced insanity we have a society that is uncomfortable with the risk of living thanks to a Nanny State that is more Oedipal Mother than the usual Abusive Father.

But this is more than just risk aversion. It’s truly a pathological fear of risk and the consequences of poor decisions; high time-preference decisions that permeate every aspect of our Western society.

Because we’ve been conditioned by you to believe there’s always another bubble to be blown up. There’s always another credit-induced boom around the corner. Housing prices can’t go down. Our jobs will come back and there will always be enough food.

Continue reading

Never Underestimate the Power of a Question, by Robert Gore

What if? Why not?

Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert comic strip, has a phrase—mental prisons—for looking and thinking at problems in the same old way. He’s hailed President Trump and Kanye West as escapees. That’s fine as far as it goes, but key to any kind of general escape is recognizing that governments are the wardens.

Hospital administrators and doctors within Britain’s National Health Service (NHS) were little Alfie Evans’ wardens. They determined the 17-month old’s brain condition was terminal and he was in an irreversible vegetative state, and ordered his life support withdrawn. Alfie’s parents, Tom Evans and Kate James, contested the prognosis and the order. That they had to go to a court for permission to seek alternative medical arrangements tells you all you need to know about state-provided medical care. That permission was denied offers a sneak peek into Britain’s impending totalitarianism. Alfie died April 28.

Never underestimate the power of questions, they are the most powerful positive force in the universe. Questions embody curiosity, courage, and a quest for the truth. They initiate investigation, hypotheses, experimentation, new knowledge, and progress. The first questions humanity’s forebears asked began the long, arduous journey to civilization.

MAGA was the Trump acronym; his symbol should have been the question mark. The two are related. The acronym implies America is no longer great, which prompts the obvious question: Why? The source of most of the vitriol directed toward Trump is not so much his answers, which have often been contradicted by his actions. Trump’s transgression is that he dared to question in the first place: immigration policy, foreign military intervention, trade agreements, costs of alliances, corruption, and so on.

Government creates a comfortable status quo for government, string pullers, and beneficiaries. Its prime imperative is to preserve itself. Any change perceived as a threat will be resisted, stifled, and squelched. Questions are inherently threatening, so Trump must be stopped at all costs. Tom Evans and Kate James must not be allowed to challenge their son’s death sentence. Kanye West must be shamed and ostracized.

A deadly deception sells government with terms like “progressive” and “liberal.” Governments are coercion, which is always regressive and illiberal. They are captured by a society’s wealthiest and most powerful and used to cement that group’s status. Crumbs are tossed to the lower rungs, not to improve their station but to make them dependent on the government and ensure their support. Criticism of this arrangement is tolerated only to the extent it can’t be suppressed, but suppression always looms, sometimes blatantly, sometimes in barely perceptible ways.

Scott Adams and other commentators see Kanye West as the start of something dramatically new among blacks. Doing electoral math, some foresee an appreciable downshift in blacks’ usual 90 percent plus support for Democrats, which will, they claim, doom the donkeys. Such triumphalism is misplaced.

It’s not like Kanye West is the first black to question black fealty to Democrats. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have been skewering shibboleths on race for decades.

Indian-American Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary Hillary’s America examined the Democrats’ long history of overt racism. It’s support of slavery, the Klu Klux Klan, Jim Crow, poll taxes, and segregation, and its opposition to anti-lynching and civil and voting rights legislation made the racist south a solidly Democratic bastion for almost a century. Blacks voted overwhelmingly Republican for seventy years after the Civil War.

Franklin D. Roosevelt switched them to the Democratic column. The impetus was primarily economic and political, not civil rights. The New Deal helped those most devastated by the Depression, many of whom were black. Politically, Roosevelt offered them a place in the Democratic coalition, although it put them in uneasy alliance with the southern racists. The switch offers insight into blacks unwavering support for Democrats since Roosevelt.

Years ago, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board started referring to the Democratic “plantation” for blacks, and the phrase is still in use, usually by conservative commentators who regard it as a bold badge of political incorrectness. Blacks ignore it and the implicit question: when will they “wake up,” realize their slavery, and flee the plantation? If they’re receiving economic and political benefits from Democrats and governments, paid for in part by taxes coerced from The Wall Street Journal’s editors and conservative commentators, who’s the slaves?

While racism may never be excised entirely, blacks’ legal status and their position vis-a-vis America’s governments have never been better. Many receive substantial economic largesse from the government, including cash, in-kind benefits, and preferences in hiring and contracting. Blacks, almost always Democrats, have been elected to just about every political office in the land, including the presidency. Multi-millionaire West doesn’t need government, but millions of blacks do, and they vote for the party that identifies itself as the party of government.

One can argue that black dependence on the Democrats and government is bad for them; dependence of any kind usually is. Everyone knows overeating can kill you, but we still have an obesity epidemic. Black dependence is a shackle, but it’s durable and won’t be unlocked just because a rich rap star questions it.

Presidents have found shackles easier to break when they don’t involve domestic constituencies. Nixon went to China and Trump is going to the Korean peninsula to negotiate with Kim Jong-Un. While the outcome is uncertain, if Trump eventually gets an agreement by which North Korea denuclearizes, perhaps in exchange for the US withdrawing troops from South Korea—or at least stopping war exercises—and security guarantees from the US and China, it will be a triumph. Moon Jae-in, Kim Jong-Un, and Trump will deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump asked what if the stalemated status quo that had held sway on the Korean peninsula since the cessation of hostilities in 1953 could be broken. The usual establishment and media suspects said their nays (see “Media Pundits Horrified by Prospect Between North and South Korea”) but had only the usual palaver when Trump asked why not. It’s a measure of how bizarrely ossified their thinking has become that a peace and nuclear disarmament initiative is mocked, lambasted, and rejected out of hand before negotiations have even begun.

Trump is also questioning the status quo on Iran, pulling the US out of the Iranian Nuclear Agreement. Evidently he wants to negotiate a better deal. The move is thoroughly questionable: his strategy has a lot of moving parts and he’s taking significant risks. Time will tell if things work out, but once again Trump is indisputably disrupting the consensus.

The welfare and warfare state consensus should be questioned and disrupted at every turn. The empire and its bread and circuses have corrupted and bankrupted the nation. Government is an intellectual tar pit that slows, traps, and submerges curiosity and inquiry. Questions are the hallmark of free minds. The state is the natural enemy of free thought. A fight for the latter is a fight against the former. Questions will spark the coming battle. They are weapons of independence and revolution which governments can never wholly suppress. Were they ever to do so, we’d all share Alfie Evans’ fate: hitched to their life support until they decided to kill us.

You Should Be Laughing At Them!

amazon paperback

kindle ebook

Two From Scott Adams

Here’s two more uniquely Scott Adams’ takes on labels and persuasion, from theburningplatform.com:

Goodbye ISIS, Hello Losers

President Trump just gave ISIS its new name: Losers. (Short for Evil Losers).

If you think that’s no big deal, you’re wrong. It’s a big deal. This is – literally – weapons-grade persuasion from the most powerful Master Persuader of our time.

As I have taught you in this blog, President Trump’s clever nicknames for people are not random. They are deeply engineered for visual impact and future confirmation bias.

In this case, the visuals will be provided by future terror attacks. That reinforces the “evil” part, obviously. But more importantly, the Losers will be doing nothing but losing on the battlefield from now until “annihilation.” They are surrounded, and the clock is ticking. Oh, and the press isn’t allowed to watch the final battles. In other words, we won’t need to build new holding cells on Guantanamo Bay this time. No press means no prisoners, if you know what I mean. (American soldiers won’t be shooting the prisoners. We have allies for that sort of thing.)

As you know, “annihilation” of the Losers in Loserdom won’t stop the loser’s ideas from spreading. You still have to kill the ideas. And that takes persuasion, not bullets. President Trump just mapped out the persuasion solution: Evil Losers.

To continue reading: Goodbye ISIS, Hello Losers

The Time I Nudged Climate Scientists into Debunking their Own Models

If you have been reading this blog and following me on Periscope, you know I announced I was going to use my own powers of persuasion to nudge climate scientists into doing a better job of communicating their side of things. The climate models are the least-credible thing scientists do, and yet scientists have been using their models as their featured evidence. No matter which side you are on with the climate change debate, you don’t want either side using their weakest argument. You want both sides to do their best so we can accurately judge who has the strongest thinking. To that end, I framed the “climate models” as being necessarily incomplete because you really need economic models to decide how to react to climate change, not scientific models. And long-term economic models have zero credibility. Even scientists would agree on that point.

Evidently I applied enough persuasion to generate this video that attempts to debunk my debunking of climate models. But it does so by…devaluing their own models. That’s what I was trying to do too. We’re on the same page.

Watch the clip for the Absurd Absolute tell for cognitive dissonance that happens at ten seconds in. The scientist defines the opposition argument with the absurd absolutes “anything” and  “everything.” Whenever you see your opposition create a strawman argument with absurd absolutes, it means you won the debate. You only see this behavior when the opposition has no response to your real argument; they have to transform it into an absurd absolute in order to have any response at all.

I told you I was going to rewire this global debate exactly this way. I did this as a demonstration of the power of persuasion.

Now, do you still think President Trump’s branding of the Losers is just name-calling?

It isn’t.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/05/25/the-time-i-nudged-climate-scientists-into-debunking-their-own-models/

‘Dilbert’ Creator’s 6 Reasons Why Trump Will “Win In A Landslide” In November, by Tyler Durden and Scott Adams

The creator of the Dilbert comic strip thinks Trump wins in a landslide, for reasons that neither Trump supporters or foes will find entirely comforting. From Tyler Durden and Scott Adams at zerohedge.com:

Scott Adams – creator of the infamous Dilbert cartoons – believes Donald Trump will win the presidency in a landslide. Trump’s “meticulously plotted domination,” as Adams explains to The Washington Post, stems from his running on our emotions and sly appeals to our own human irrationality. as the following six points make clear, Adams views Trump as “a master persuader” who will rhetorically dismantle Clinton’s candidacy next.

Having nothing to lose essentially then increases his chance of winning, because it opens up his field of rhetorical play. “Psychology is the only necessary skill for running for president,” writes Adams, adding: “Trump knows psychology.”

Within that context, here is what Candidate Trump is doing to win campaign hearts and minds, according to Scott Adams:

“Dilbert.” (by Scott Adams / Universal Uclick)

1. Trump knows people are basically irrational.

“If you see voters as rational you’ll be a terrible politician,” Adams writes on his blog. “People are not wired to be rational. Our brains simply evolved to keep us alive. Brains did not evolve to give us truth. Brains merely give us movies in our minds that keeps us sane and motivated. But none of it is rational or true, except maybe sometimes by coincidence.”

2. Knowing that people are irrational, Trump aims to appeal on an emotional level.

“The evidence is that Trump completely ignores reality and rational thinking in favor of emotional appeal,” Adams writes. “Sure, much of what Trump says makes sense to his supporters, but I assure you that is coincidence. Trump says whatever gets him the result he wants. He understands humans as 90-percent irrational and acts accordingly.”

Adams adds: “People vote based on emotion. Period.”

“Dilbert.” (by Scott Adams / Universal Uclick)

3. By running on emotion, facts don’t matter.

“While his opponents are losing sleep trying to memorize the names of foreign leaders – in case someone asks – Trump knows that is a waste of time … ,” Adams writes. “There are plenty of important facts Trump does not know. But the reason he doesn’t know those facts is – in part – because he knows facts don’t matter. They never have and they never will. So he ignores them.

“Right in front of you.”

And stating numbers that might not quite be facts nevertheless can anchor those numbers, and facts, in your mind.

To continue reading: ‘Dilbert’ Creator’s 6 Reasons Why Trump Will “Win In A Landslide” In November