How to Be Unpersuasive | Hacker News Reader

How to Be Unpersuasive

blog.dilbert.com

18 pointstapan_k11 comments

We argue about whether or not Trump won in a “landslide.”

Actually it was Trump himself who started the "argument" by making the (patently unsupportable) claim that he won in a landslide. Thus exemplifying the very "word-thinking" style that Adams is now attacking in others.

I don't completely disagree, but the argument you put forward is about as ad hominem as they get. Is what he says flawed or are you simply utterly interested?

What I find ironic about Scott Adams, is that he uses his persuasion techniques to persuade us he is an expert in persuasion.

He derides experts, so its hard to tell if he is an actual expert or not.

its like a circular loop. There are so many contradictions you can't keep track of it all, but then it doesn't matter, because those counter arguments aren't persuasive.

I may be totally against the grain by saying this but I feel its a good article and is relevant. We need to figure out how to communicate across divides.

Scott Adams is a washed-up cartoonist turned reactionary collaborationist pundit whose only recent accomplishment is getting owned on Twitter all day. What does he know about persuading people?

On his Blog he wrote some insightful articles about how and why Trump will win. Unlike the mainstream media, he got it right. So I count at least two accomplishments.

Trump won on account of a strange edge case in the electoral college system precipitated by incredibly low voter turn out (blame the russians, blame the clintons, blame whoever doesn't really matter). Let's not play revisionist history where a situation in which a candidate appears to be polling better and actually gets over 2.5 million more of the popular vote, shouldn't be generally viewed as the front runner.

He guessed correctly because he was shallow-minded enough to buy in, not because he had some special insight into the American psyche.

Regardless, American media makes for an abysmal benchmark.

I would say his prediction was more than just coincidence -- which he made when Trump was among 15 candidates vying for the GOP nomination. His raw odds then of being right were 14:1 against.

He also doubled-down - with qualifications - once Trump secured the nomination. Almost everyone else - including myself - saw the general election as a Clinton shoo-in, given Trump's numerous deviations from what most of us had believed were political candidate social norms, among other apparent disadvantages.

I'm interested how much of his articles you've read. Judging from his articles, he doesn't seem shallow minded to me. He is always able to raise clear and reasonable points in his articles.

I wouldn't say he has insight to American but rather human psyche and its biases, which you should know if you've read his articles.

A phrase like that reminds me of a line from a not-so-good Keanu Reeves flick that goes, "You not a has-been. You're a never-were."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com