This is actually a really good podcast. Adams makes a lot of good points here

This is actually a really good podcast. Adams makes a lot of good points here

youtube.com/watch?v=ReKIJvOJDrs

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=W4p7A0EtZqg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

is this with sam harris?
yeah, he schooled him harder than chomsky there. really shows the limits of harris' intellect.

certified genius

This is his girlfriend as well just to add insult to injury. Sam Harris got BTFO on all fronts

I'm about to get religious on this b!tch.. wtf

You know what's crazy? Scott Adams may genuinely be one of the smartest men in America. I mean, he saw Trump coming, and knew he'd win. That puts him ahead of a lot of so-called public intellectuals.

he's really smart, but he lacks a moral center. he's too comfortable with the concept of lying to the people

Dilbert is shit, Adams is a pandering fuck and Harris is an autistic pseud.

anyone listen to his periscope chats? my dad does but I didn't know what its about

Being convinced in your belief that Trump was going to win, tells nobody anything about how smart you are.

yea he definitely is too comfortable putting his faith in Trump without any real evidence to do so and using the reason that people in government have access to knowledge we simply don't. That's true and far too many people think they have information about things they don't, but it doesn't mean that we should think trump's lies are all in service for the greater good.

>I mean, he saw Trump coming, and knew he'd win.
So did Bill Mitchell...

They're both fucking stupid, why is this shit on Veeky Forums?

Well, yeah, Bill Mitchell did, of course. But you have to admit they were outliers. They diagnosed the collective American psyche pretty accurately, and that's no small thing.

Dubs of truth

Yes, they are about blowing out cucks

Because Adams was shilling his
>new book
And sam Harris was praising Adams most recent
>book

>public "intellectuals"
LAMO

fuck is this guy going to get memed on here too? i like peterson and zizek is funny because he is a eastern european clown but now the dilbert guy? can't we just talk about pynchon instead or something.

No this is /pol/'s side piece now

getting super sick of the youtube shit too

>he's too comfortable with the concept of what american politics is centered around

Adams gets off to a great start by offering without provocation that he is “a trained hypnotist”, which he evidently thinks is a credential. He also asserts that all analogies are never valid. Like, just in general. This ‘argument’ was deployed whenever Sam made any kind of analogy that Scott didn’t know how to respond to. Of course, Scott made at least a dozen analogies during his comments, including one he was quite proud of about a movie theater. Adams proceeds to give us his basic thesis, which is that Trump’s apparent stupidity and recklessness is a brilliant act that will, in the end, make all our wildest dreams come true.
Scott is absolutely not okay with Sam guessing at Trump’s intentions or motivations. He criticizes Sam for this while simultaneously basing many of his arguments on knowing what Trump thinks and what his real intentions are. As a certain philosopher once put it, "this is how you play tennis without the net." Adams’ recurrent hypocrisy aside -- attributing mental states to other agents, called ‘theory of mind’, is a skill that is extremely useful for navigating the social landscape and predicting the future behavior of others.
One of the most frustrating parts of the episode was Adams’ tactic of psychoanalyzing Sam in lieu of responding with an actual argument. His psychoanalysis of Sam mainly consisted of pointing out ‘tells’ for Sam’s raging cognitive dissonance he’s experiencing from being so wrong about the outcome of the election and Trump.
I’ll demonstrate this psychoanalyzing tactic in a hypothetical conversation:
”Here's argument X for disliking Trump as a president.”
“Ah, I know the real reason why you hate Trump. It’s your repressed daddy issues.”
“You’re dodging my argument.”
“Now see that’s exactly the adverse response I would expect from someone with repressed daddy issues.”
“You still need to address argument X.”
“That’s what a person with daddy issues would say. See, your response is actually a tell for your underlying dysfunction.”
Most people can see why this is unfalsifiable and pseudoscientific, but not Scott. Scott sits enthralled in the glow of his computer screen, thinking ‘gosh, I have it all figured out’.
He also suggests late in the podcast that we don’t need to worry about climate change induced sea-level rise because maybe someone will invent something where “we can, you know, just suck the sea up”.
After solving climate change, he reminds us once again that all analogies are invalid. In his final minutes on the show, he asserts that despite what Trump says and does publicly, he is secretly making Russia pay for hacking our election, or as he eloquently puts it, “fucking them hard over this”.
And then suddenly, as mysteriously as he arrived, he was gone.

>people thought scott "won" the discussion

jesus christ.

he didn't refute a single question properly and most of his replies just came down to "le epic master persuader" for which he actually showed no evidence of. just that he is one.

every piece of persuasion he mentioned could easily be applied to for obama/bill clinton/etc etc.

>hey analogies are bad
>btw look at this movie analogy i have, isn't it neat?

>the biggest sign of cognitive dissonance is thinking yu know what someone thinks
>and also btw let me tell you exactly what trump meant by doing this and what was going through his mind

i'm absolutely amazed people think scott came off well in that

PERSUASION INTENSIFIES

Honestly I think people aren't able to form opinions of their own so they just look for the top rated comment and agree with it, I'm sure one or two idiots were actually taken in by this tool, but everyone after that is just a blind follower getting on a bandwagon.

Agreed, I couldn't make it past an hour in.

It really boils down to this:

Trump is either a (*waves hands*) master persuader, or a rich, old, narcissistic man suffering cognitive decline due to age.

Scott uses his own confirmation bias to make everything fit into the former narrative. ("It doesn't matter if its ethical, hes a con-man - you said it! This means he's persuasive!" "70D Chess!"). I, based on reality, choose the latter. Trump is not a stratagizer, he's a sad old man who should be confined to a golfing retirement home.

The fact that Scott and co. think Trump is some master negotiator (Art of the Deal was ghost written) is incredible to me. Occam's razor says the opposite...

>sad old man
>most powerful position in the world

Just because something is ghost written doesn't mean it's not actually trumps ideas, but hey you and sam keep showing off your double digit iq Vulcan intellect me and Scott will be slamming instagram models on our 3-d chess boards

>hey analogies are bad
>btw look at this movie analogy i have, isn't it neat?
he specifically said analogies are only good to use when introducing a new concept. that is exactly what the movie analogy did

>the biggest sign of cognitive dissonance is thinking yu know what someone thinks
>and also btw let me tell you exactly what trump meant by doing this and what was going through his mind
"what he meant" and "going through his mind" are your words. all adams did was argue that the behavior of trump fits the strategies a very persuasive politician would employ and he doesn't think it is an accident because there have been too many good plays

also, the reason I think sam came off worse in the debate is his constantly bringing up morality. he just assumes that adams agrees with him in terms of what is morally good and bad and goes from there. I'm not sold on his own morality system at all so all of that stuff about morality coming from sam's mouth was garbage to me

It's an indictment of our intellectual capacity as a country that a reality-tv star is the most powerful man in the country, yes, you're correct.


Even if I accept the book was based on his ideas, would you care to explain how he uses these negotiation skills we're all waiting to see?

I'm utterly unconvinced that Trump is a master tactician. Rather, I'm actually concerned that trump may have colluded without actually realizing that it's probably treasonous on some level - I literally don't know if he reasoned that out.

Please, enlighten the rest of us. So far as Adams was barking on Sam's podcast, it sounded as if anything I would call a mistake, Adam's would call "brilliant". It seemed as if he could do no wrong. There was no way to falsify Adam's theory because he would just use some post facto rationale to praise trump.

I mean come on, it seems infinitely more likely to me that Trump is just a fucking idiot, and less so that this is some huge ruse and he's cackling in his office, ordering his minions to put out fake stories and commanding the psychology of hundreds of millions.

Jesus fucking christ, my friend, you have been duped by the shittiest persuaders. God knows what an actual master persuader could do.

>I've studied persuasion

I'm convinced that most Trump haters simply hate him for some reason (it can be a very superficial thing, like his hair/mannerisms) and that tilts them so much they completely lose their ability to think clearly. It's a bit funny but also sad.
You could hear even the usually reasonable Sam Harris lose his shit to an extent, not to mention all the media personalities, especially those TV "comedians" and the whole Democratic party.
Overall I think it comes down to a lack of empathy and experience.
Trump is a clown and a joke to an extent, but if you can't even deal with that, what does it say about you?

I think a lot has to do with the fact that he holds beliefs they don't agree with but they can only articulate how annoying his mannerisms are. Also, as Adams points out, he creates a lot of room for himself by saying ridiculous things that are obviously horrible, but they may end up actually being OK if you're a streamline conservative.

(((moral center)))

>Trump is a clown and a joke to an extent, but if you can't even deal with that, what does it say about you?

What does it say about you that you are willing to have a clown and/or joke in charge of nuclear codes? My point being: its not exactly a great thing to have a clown/joke in a position with influence over *real* lives, and *real* death, and *real* consequences for *real* people.

jesus christ this post lool
its like the twitter clap meme (with the *real*) and the "we cant let him get the nuclear codes" all in one and i dont think youre being ironic
>the state of you
just, lol

>Read: Waking Up with Sam Harris feat. Scott Adams
>Expected: blahblahblahislamblahblahblahislamblah
>Got: wtf i love trump now

Harris BTFO

I knew Trump would win because I knew the sensationalist media would provide him with billions of dollars in free coverage.

Trump antagonizes the media into giving him more free coverage, which only intensifies the supporters' view of him as a victim of the media. It's a purely dominant strategy in a zero sum game.

>I'm utterly unconvinced that Trump is a master tactician

This is a literature board, retards.

>It's an indictment of our intellectual capacity as a country that a reality-tv star is the most powerful man in the country

Literally isn't anything new. Ronald Reagan was also a TV-star, and if Arnold Schwarzenegger actually was born in America, it wouldn't surprise me if he would've been President eventually as well.

What was there to refute? Harris simply committed the typical mind fallacy over and over and over again. Scott Adams was talking about things from a pragmatic perspective, yet harris kept pivoting to moral platitudes.

Both Reagan and Arnold were horribly unqualified and it showed.

Qualifications for a presidency literally doesn't exist, and if they did, they would be pure idealism.

No shit, Presidential elections are largely popularity contests and have been at least since the advent of the televised debate.

Is this post a joke?
Anyway, if a US president had the power to do crazy stuff as you suggest you'd have a point, but he doesn't.
The way the government and all is set up the president can do very little, especially a new guy like Trump that has very few friends in Washington.
So the presidency is in large part a symbolic function, with some general political guidelines.
The politics that affects real everyday lives is done mostly at the local level.

>I mean, if we're trying to influence the elections in, like, Iran, it's because we're good, in a fairly deep sense of the word!
And this person is considered to be an intellectual in the USA?

I generally agree, Adams in his obsession with Trump created an idealized version which planned everything to an extent that simply doesn't fit his real personality or actions at all. That said, it does seem likely that a lot of the "4d chess" shit was done on an old businessmans instinct like trolling the media into giving free coverage, or saying things just surprising or offensive enough to make political enemies overreact and persuade the unoffended potential right wing voters to join Trumps side.
Adams is great at identifying how the politcal waters turned, even if his opinions are completely biased, and his handcrafted image of Trump completely fictitious.

helloooooooo reddit

First time (and now hopefully last time) listening to Sam Harris.
What a goddamn weasel

>muh russia
>muh drumpfh
>muh hillary did nothing wrong

Goddamn day of the rope can't come soon enough, that goes for all you lit pseuds who rate savage detectives too.

There was nearly a shooting war with North Korea till someone countered his orders.

He has a lot of control but a lot of handlers too. No one controls the world, but putting clowns and ass-hats in positions of power has always been foolish
"All power to the people" makes a hell of a lot more sense than centralized authority.

It wasn't a joke, of course, it is a bit hyperbolic, but thats to make a point.

If you haven't noticed, the president these days has way more power than was initially given to him (War Powers Act, increasingly liberal use of executive orders, increasing use of JSOC, etc). Essentially, the president does have an increasing ability to "do crazy stuff" without checks.

You are correct in the sense that he cannot simply move our fiscal policy at will. He has shown, through his idiocy, how the president can shift things significantly without check on issues such as foreign policy.

I mean, right now you have governors trying to do foreign policy with canada. I don't think thats a good sign.

Correct, in that politics of the everyday are mostly at the local level, but that changes when you increase the risk of long-tailed events (channeling my taleb) such as outbreak of war - either economically or otherwise.

Yes, my post was peak liberal-elite twitter meme, but there is also a grain of truth in it that we can unpack. The presidency, under Obama and predating him as well, has steadily increased in its power - particularly in non-domestic issues (which may eventually hit everyday life even harder...)

The free coverage I think was his TV instincts kicking in - its really all he has at this point. He doesnt even have a vocabulary anymore, or rather, it is less than tremendous or very very good.

So maybe that's 3d chess, but barely.

Any post-election commentator could provide similar analysis (emotional connection w/ electorate, etc) while sparing me the bullshit.

>all the butthurt in this thread

All power to the people inevtiably results in centralized authority unless there are mediating and participatory organizations. Read up on Rosseau's "general will" and Tocqueville.

Not necessarily. Once capitalism is pushed out of the way things fall into place and work quite agreeably. People will be very reluctant to return to old broken systems. Local communities will have councils running food distribution or power grid maintenance, w/e. That's about as centralized as they need to get. The new social norms would take us away from the old.

>Once capitalism is pushed out of the way things fall into place and work quite agreeably.

Agreed comrade, the distribution of bread becomes much more orderly!

>butters is a filthy communist
unsurprising
filthy commies btfo

I thought that was Larry David and wondered why he was hiding behind Dilbert

larry.. easy on the tsuris

>Reddit.

>Spacing.

GET OFF MY BOARD.

>Once capitalism is pushed out of the way things fall into place and work quite agreeably.
Capitalism is the thought that if things are allowed to be by themselves without external or conscious human action, things will work out quite agreeably. If the Irish are starving, you shouldn't give them food aid, because such is against 'nature' or the way of things. "The way of things is perfect."

Once capitalism is taken out, do you propose that a new system will take place or that the full spectrum of human interaction will take place?

>this thread
>mbti thread
why the fuck is all this t r a s h still up MODS

This is my swamp.

This man only got one scoop.

I think its pretty obvious how taken in Harris is by the MSM narrative he literally calls trump Hitler twice while trying to avoid this fallacy the whole time and just keeps calling him an evil bad man. Harris also goes on about renewable energy which is total fucking meme tech, in terms of being a viable solution for now. He fell for leftists narratives that have to be dishonest (anti-science) about fracking and nuclear.

> I'm not sold on his own morality system at all so all of that stuff about morality coming from sam's mouth was garbage to me

He also constantly shoe horns in what he would have done in Trumps situation, which I don't believe, and it doesn't matter because he'll never get a chance to.

>It's an indictment of our intellectual capacity as a country that a reality-tv star is the most powerful man in the country, yes, you're correct.

We know more about him than any politician that has ever run.

food aid causes starvation by perpetually putting farmers out of business.

Permanent food aid vs. Food aid during a famine season.
Related talk.
youtube.com/watch?v=W4p7A0EtZqg

Are you just memeing, or is that real?

LOL

Dilbert is a comic where the comedy assumes that we take the situations seriously in order to laugh at them. I don't like that sort of humor at all.

I remember that he used to be smart, but after Trump won he went full retard to the point that I stopped listening to his Coffee with Scott Adams show. It had gotten ridiculous - he seemed convinced that absolutely everything Trump did was part of a genius persuasion strategy.

Everything Trump does in public most likely is.

His "genius persuasion strategy" has made him the least popular president in the history of the United States. Unless he's trying to pull a Lelouch it's not going too well.

Media has too tight of a grip on their population. For now. Trump is focused on the political issues rather than popularity right now. That's how I see it.

It's not as though the media could have anything to do with that.

>waahhh Trump is going to start WW3!
>waahhhhh Trump WON'T escalate tensions with Russia!
>what?! HE MET WITH PUTIN? And they agreed on a ceasefire?
>RUSSIAN AGENT! RUSSIAN AGENT!

>CNN exposed as knowingly pushing a "probably BS" narrative
>uh uh uh uh JOBS and THE WALL and HEALTHCARE HAHAHA Trump is so impotent!
I'm just getting so sleepy. I think we should all go to bed.

>The free coverage I think was his TV instincts kicking in - its really all he has at this point. He doesnt even have a vocabulary anymore
The "absurd absolute" tell for cognitive dissonance, ladies and gentlemen.

Its from another place on the internet that will remain nameless... hehe

kek

the second sentence is already obviously false strawmanning, is this usually how r/samharris operates?

Bill Mitchell was a Jebhead at first until his audience revolted against him. His prediction can easily be written off as fanaticism, right for the wrong reasons. However, Scott Adams had literally no reason to predict that Donald Trump would win back in August 2015 unless he had particularly good intuition about what it would take to become president. The only reason Scott Adams even leans towards Donald Trump is because he's a natural contrarian who resented the backlash he got for speaking his opinion as a neutral observer with expertise in "persuasion" or whatever the fuck he calls it. The fact that some random cartoonist understands politics better than anybody else should be a damning indictment of every self-professed intellectual in the United States. And of course, instead of trying to learn from Scott Adams, everybody is busy trying to defame or silence him. I fucking hate this country and every pseudointellectual that is contributing to our stagnation as a species.

Yep, that's about as intellectual as it gets in the American mainstream media (aka most people are dumber than Sam Harris).
And then people wonder how Trump got elected...

>He also asserts that all analogies are never valid.
This kills the Sam Harris.

>I’ll demonstrate this psychoanalyzing tactic in a hypothetical conversation:
If you think that Adams's understanding of "tells" is Freudian in any sense, then you're a fucking retard who's never read a single word he's ever written.

>The only reason Scott Adams even leans towards Donald Trump is because he's a natural contrarian who resented the backlash he got for speaking his opinion as a neutral observer with expertise in "persuasion" or whatever the fuck he calls it. The fact that some random cartoonist understands politics better than anybody else should be a damning indictment of every self-professed intellectual in the United States.
You're completely disregarding the fact that Adams actually points out psychological strategies Trump uses and that are well attested in the literature. go back to r/iamverysmart

>I'm utterly unconvinced that Trump is a master tactician
I hope you continue to believe this so Trump can waltz his way to a second term without any sweat off of his back. Dumbass, even when I was a full-on liberal I was able to recognize that he was a formidable opponent.

He never does that, though. He says they are useful for introducing new ideas (his example: a zebra is kind of like a horse but with stripes), but not useful for persuasion because an analogous concept will always be different from the topic you want to persuade someone on (a zebra will never be a horse). You'll just end up debating on how well (or not) the analogy fits.

>You're completely disregarding the fact that Adams actually points out psychological strategies Trump uses and that are well attested in the literature. go back to r/iamverysmart
Uh... no I am not disregarding that? I literally referenced Adams's expertise in "persuasion". Stop being a judgmental cunt.

>He never does that, though. He says they are useful for introducing new ideas (his example: a zebra is kind of like a horse but with stripes), but not useful for persuasion because an analogous concept will always be different from the topic you want to persuade someone on (a zebra will never be a horse). You'll just end up debating on how well (or not) the analogy fits.
What are you talking about? I've The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, a few public speaking events about moral issues, and his written debates with both Dennett and Chomsky. Sam Harris literally cannot debate anything about ethics or politics without relying on an analogy to do the heavy duty lifting for him. He's not good at generalizing to universal principles or bringing the parts of a complex machine distinctly into focus.

Sorry, wasn't clear, just pointing out that the post you were quoting was false. I wasn't talking about Harris but about Adams.

Ah I see. Sorry for contributing to the confusion.

>Stop being a judgmental cunt.
stop being a cunt in general

I never started. Go back to the plebbit safe space for pseuds with the other Sam Harris fanatics.

Triggered was an appropriate title.

Great, but just for the record, how is this literature related?