Archive for the ‘Psychology’ Category
It will probably take a few more than ten minutes of your time to do it right; but as Scott Adams suggests:
Seriously. Stop what you are doing. Give this ten minutes. It’s more important that almost anything you were going to do today.
Then save the link for later sharing. Show it to all of your friends who think Trump is a racist monster. This ends it.
The only people who will think Trump is a racist going forward are people who haven’t read this article. If you find someone like that, send them the link. This piece is a brilliant service to the country. Breathtaking. [Well-deserved emphasis mine.]
I presume everyone has seen this by now (H/T Chris):
…but it is worth saving for posterity. Whatever one may have thought of the oleaginous filmmaker, it is hard to argue with his impassioned and persuasive take on this election. I may have to somewhat modify my knee-jerk opinion of him. Read the rest of this entry »
Scott Adams at his best: “The Crook Versus the Monster”
Thanks to timely assists from Wikileaks, Trump has successfully framed Hillary clinton as a crooked politician. Meanwhile, Clinton has successfully framed Trump as a dangerous monster. If the mainstream polls are accurate, voters prefer the crook to the monster. That makes sense because a crook might steal your wallet but the monster could kill you. As of today, Clinton has the superior persuasion strategy. Crook beats monster.
Reality isn’t a factor in this election, as per usual. If the truth mattered, voters might care that the Democratic primaries were rigged against Sanders. They might care that the Clinton Foundation looks like a pay-to-play scheme. They might care that the FBI gave Clinton a free pass. They might care that we know Clinton cheated in at least one debate by getting a question in advance. They might care that Clinton’s dirty-tricks people incited the violence at Trump rallies. They might care that Clinton’s “speaking fees” were curiously high. They might care about all of that. But they don’t, because a crook is still a safer choice than a monster.
This is a consistent theme of Adam’s blog, in which he endeavors mightily to help us understand how insignificant most of the scandals we obsess over, will be to the ultimate outcome of this election. Read the rest of this entry »
As usual, Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams’ blog this morning was persuasive: “Lie Detection and Scandals”
When Clinton’s surrogates respond to questions about Wikileaks by saying the Russians are behind it, that’s an acknowledgment of guilt. Guilty people almost always question the source of the information first. Innocent people start with a clear denial, or sometimes confusion as to why the question is being asked.
He then makes a persuasive case for how and why Clinton’s apologists believe the Wikileaks are true. Later, he also suggests that they aren’t making much difference:
The Wikileaks emails are not having a huge impact because movies and books have taught us that even our most-respected politicians do favor-trading to get things done. And the emails that DO NOT come from Clinton are little more than underlings chattering. So far, Wikileaks is a big nothing.
I tend to agree with his analysis here; but the far more interesting critique comes when it is Trump’s turn: Read the rest of this entry »
For all the whinny beta male Cuckservatives, pissing themselves over Trump’s crass language on the eleven-year-old ‘hot mike’ tape, Breitbart offers:
While The Washington Post was busy putting the finishing touches on the release of a video in which Donald Trump boasted about hitting on women, Juanita Broaddrick was in town at the historic Watergate Hotel, where she repeatedly broke down in tears during a powerful video interview exclusive to Breitbart News, recounting what she described as the life-changing experience of being raped by Bill Clinton.
Too bad that we are paying his Praetorian Guard detail for the rest of his miserable life, to protect him from the street justice he so richly deserves. If it matters to you Read the rest of this entry »
This is the modern Internet at its best. A world class philosopher at home in Canada, and a world famous cartoonist at home in California, sharing an utterly fascinating discussion over Skype, with the whole world via YouTube:
Don’t be dissuaded by the title; surprisingly little of their thought-provoking conversation is about Trump himself. Still, if he accomplishes nothing else this election season, I will always be grateful for the impetus he provided for me to discover the mind of Scott Adams, and for these two intellectual titans to get together for this entertaining debate. Read the rest of this entry »
Recently on the “Eliminating Authority” discussion thread, Chris offered an enigma:
Just to throw out a bit of a muse that I can’t quite figure out yet. In this day and age anybody can carry in their pocket the wisdom and knowledge of all recorded human history and every technology known. All the great philosophers, leaders, and critical minds works are at our finger tips. Yet we remain so stupid.
…that deserves its own topic for discussion. First, I would suggest that information ≠ education. All the information in the world, is useless to anyone not willing or able, to access and learn it. It is certainly not PC to say so; but there are a significant percentage of people in the world, for which what we might consider as ‘educated,’ is simply beyond their ken. Ever meet someone with an IQ of 100? Now, ponder the unavoidable fact that fully half the world’s population, are dumber still! Read the rest of this entry »
Now that I seem to have outgrown the affliction, after ten years in my hermitage, it is probably safe to admit that I spent most of my life as an incurable romantic. I never minded watching a chick flick, especially if it put a date or mate in a cuddly mood, and even enjoyed reading the occasional romantic novel.
When single, I thoroughly enjoyed courting, and developed a proclivity for rescuing damsels in distress. Even though such chivalry occasionally earned me an eventual broken heart, I couldn’t kick the habit. After a suitable period of melancholy, I would be vulnerable to trying to save another one. Simply put, I loved the feeling of falling and being in love.
Perhaps this is why I was so impressed with Bill Clinton’s speech last night. Even though it was obvious to me that he was lying through his teeth, and leaving out some rather unpleasant episodes in their timeline, I found his narrative brilliantly written and masterfully delivered, for the task at hand. He nearly had me ready to vote for her. Read the rest of this entry »
I have frequently shared my favorable opinion of Camille Paglia, as my favorite feminist. I have just discovered a worthy competitor for that covetable title. She may not be quite as irreverently feisty; but Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers, is every bit as intelligent, outspoken, and critical of modern feminism and stultifying campus culture. She has the further advantages of being heterosexual and way easier on the eyes. 😉
If you appreciate strong intelligent women, take a break from politics and enjoy this conversation:
One need not agree with all they said, to enjoy the repartee; yet I am in substantial agreement with most of it. I was inspired to look Sommers up in the wiki. She has quite a CV. As an unapologetic male chauvinist, I can’t help but find this sixty-five-year-old lady rather charming, and imagining what she must have looked like as a California girl / ’60s flower child. 😉 ◄Dave►
Scott Adams has penned another provocative article, “Why Gun Control Can’t Be Solved in the USA“:
On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.
On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.
If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.
But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.
That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.
A generalization, perhaps; but an entirely plausible one. It will surely be deemed bigoted by the PC SJWs to publicly say so; but the Democrats have only themselves to blame. The Republicans have always pandered to the “law & order” and NRA folks, while the Democrats have pandered to the malcontents ensconced in a culture of victimhood. Read the rest of this entry »