It's not a new observation https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the-key-to-success-is-sincerity-if-you-can-fake https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the

It's not a new observation https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the-key-to-success-is-sincerity-if-you-can-fake https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7132775-the-key-to-success-... : > “The key to success is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made.” Using bullshit to overwhelm facts is so well known it has it's own "law", Brandolini's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law There are famous practitioners of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop I didn't see much (any?) original thought in what he said. What's more I think there are better explanations for why he won than the one he gave. Given two arguments, one that is a stream of bullshit and one that aligns with at least some facts the audience might know, how can it be that the audience chooses to believe the bullshit? The answer he gave, which is essentially "bullshit is more believable" doesn't ring true to me. What does ring true is that key quote of yours, so the question is how does he establish credibility. He didn't say, but if you want a plausible answer try reading this: https://theconversation.com/d-218742 https://theconversation.com/d-218742