3 ms·

The entire line of thinking that Scott Adams has is basically comparable to being a dedicated pickup-artist. Adams has studied all the tricks of how to manipul

The entire line of thinking that Scott Adams has is basically comparable to being a dedicated pickup-artist. Adams has studied all the tricks of how to manipulate people and rationalizes it to the point of deluding himself. It's like saying that if you're a pickup-artist who successfully seduces your target using all manner of clever and manipulative tactics, well, they were indeed seduced so, you judge that they liked it and had a good time, so it's all good. Adams is obsessed with persuasion to the point of completely ignoring what you persuade people to do or think. Like an avid pickup-artist who treats Casanova as the hero to model, Adams sees that Trump is successful at manipulating people, so he sees that as all the proof needed that Trump is to be admired and treated as the ultimate model to follow. Short version: Adams is a lousy source for actually understanding Trump. Adams is right about some things and wrong about others, and he is among the most extreme victims of confirmation bias I've ever seen. A good understanding of Trump and the aspects Adams talks about is this: https://newrepublic.com/article/124803/donald-trump-not-liar https://newrepublic.com/article/124803/donald-trump-not-liar

taxicabjesus 9y ago
> Adams has studied all the tricks of how to manipulate people There is more than "tricks" to effective communication. THIS is Milton Erickson's insight, and this was what my comment was about. 'Tricks' were all Hillary Clinton had in her linguistic arsenal (ex: calling Trump 'dark'). You ignored my whole comment, and just compared El Presidente to a 'pick up artist'. (The premise of that field is the lesson I had to give to one of my female passengers one night, about the 'difference between boys & girls': http://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-boys-girls.html http://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-boys-... - women get to take their pick of potential suitors, whereas men have to market themselves effectively. Sometimes men resort to using linguistic 'tricks' to get women into bed. Women would be well-served by being able to recognize the language patterns that are sometimes used...) "If the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then that's exactly what Clinton was doing in this campaign. There was zero evidence from the Republican primary that a traditional campaign would work against Trump. But she ran one anyway. Why?" - https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/06/politics/hillary-clinton-memoir/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/06/politics/hillary-clinton-... Your New Republic article is from 2015, which was before El Presidente steam-rolled the republican primary field. Do you have anything newer?
- quadrangle 9y ago
  There's better and worse tricks, and then there's real communication. Scott Adams is like Hillary Clinton — both full of mediocre tricks, although there's a big difference. Adams seems to really believe what he's saying and so comes across more compellingly (despite lacking real substance and intellectual rigor). Clinton seems to be obviously deceptive and bad at hiding it (even as she's deluded herself much of the time). The New Republic article aged better than almost all the other press out there. I referenced it because it's correct and clear. I'm not sure why you brought up Clinton, but let me make this completely explicit: zero of the insights or persepctives on Trump need to describe him in contrast to Clinton, and there's no basis to think that critics of Trump have anything good to say about Clinton necessarily. My point mostly wasn't even about Trump. I'm not saying Trump himself is a pickup-artist and that's it. I'm saying that SCOTT ADAMS has an ideology comparable to that of pickup-artist culture and his (Adams') admiration for Trump is based on seeing Trump as a master pickup-artist who also can be assumed to just have the best of intentions for everyone. Adams and Trump are different types of fools.

taxicabjesus 9y ago

> Adams has studied all the tricks of how to manipulate people There is more than "tricks" to effective communication. THIS is Milton Erickson's insight, and this was what my comment was about. 'Tricks' were all Hillary Clinton had in her linguistic arsenal (ex: calling Trump 'dark'). You ignored my whole comment, and just compared El Presidente to a 'pick up artist'. (The premise of that field is the lesson I had to give to one of my female passengers one night, about the 'difference between boys & girls': http://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-boys-girls.html http://www.taxiwars.org/2016/02/the-difference-between-boys-... - women get to take their pick of potential suitors, whereas men have to market themselves effectively. Sometimes men resort to using linguistic 'tricks' to get women into bed. Women would be well-served by being able to recognize the language patterns that are sometimes used...) "If the definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result, then that's exactly what Clinton was doing in this campaign. There was zero evidence from the Republican primary that a traditional campaign would work against Trump. But she ran one anyway. Why?" - https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/06/politics/hillary-clinton-memoir/index.html https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/09/06/politics/hillary-clinton-... Your New Republic article is from 2015, which was before El Presidente steam-rolled the republican primary field. Do you have anything newer?

quadrangle 9y ago
There's better and worse tricks, and then there's real communication. Scott Adams is like Hillary Clinton — both full of mediocre tricks, although there's a big difference. Adams seems to really believe what he's saying and so comes across more compellingly (despite lacking real substance and intellectual rigor). Clinton seems to be obviously deceptive and bad at hiding it (even as she's deluded herself much of the time). The New Republic article aged better than almost all the other press out there. I referenced it because it's correct and clear. I'm not sure why you brought up Clinton, but let me make this completely explicit: zero of the insights or persepctives on Trump need to describe him in contrast to Clinton, and there's no basis to think that critics of Trump have anything good to say about Clinton necessarily. My point mostly wasn't even about Trump. I'm not saying Trump himself is a pickup-artist and that's it. I'm saying that SCOTT ADAMS has an ideology comparable to that of pickup-artist culture and his (Adams') admiration for Trump is based on seeing Trump as a master pickup-artist who also can be assumed to just have the best of intentions for everyone. Adams and Trump are different types of fools.