|
Scott Adams, creator of the popular comic Dilbert, has become one of the most bizarre political phenomena of this election. His blog goes back years, and used to be concerned with the inanities of Scott Adams’ own life – like the nature of humor, his own bizarre views about the nature of realiy and the illusion of free will, saving the world from the techical singularity. You know, normal stuff.
Then Donald Trump announced his bid for president, and the tenor of the blog started to change. All of the commentary was tangential to the actual main issue of the election – who should actually be president – but instead commented on, say, how Trump could become president if he promised to shave his head. Not long after, he started onto what would become the major narrative of his blog: that Trump is a “Master Persuader.”
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oV9cgyE.png) Seems like a rigorous methodology.
Most people’s first exposure to Scott Adams' homebrew political analysis was probably the CNN interview with Jake Tapper he gave on the subject. At the time, he insisted he was not supporting either candidate because his political views didn’t line up with either of them; he was merely offering his “Persuasion Filter” insight into the political process.
At the time, many readers (myself included) started to follow his commentary for one simple reason: he seemed to be able to make sense of an otherwise nonsensical primary process. His analysis dismissed higher-level understandings of policy in favor of basic marketing ideas. How “Make America Great” is a good slogan simply because people’s associations with each of those words is powerful and positive.
But if you read his posts hoping for an impartial analysis of the psychostrategy behind Trump’s antics, you slowly start to get a feeling that Scott Adams isn’t just telling it like it is. He’s selling something. And not just his book (alhough every post has an obligatory plug for it). It’s not just supporting Trump, either (although his man-crush on Trump is fairly obvious from the start, even when he was weakly claiming impartiality).
Adams’ narrative – and I’m simplifying here, but only slightly – is that there is an elusive, almost mystical art called “persuasion,” by which you can essentially reprogram other people to do what you want them to. Donald Trump is a master at it; Adams himself is skilled enough to at least recognize Trump’s master strokes. And lucky you, Scott Adams is prepared to explain it to you, so that you, too, can be a Master Persuader, and bend the ignorant masses to your will!
This is the extreme version of Jay Rosen’s idea of “cult of savviness” reporting. Basically, this is the kind of election coverage which holds that politics is a set of elite tricks designed to control the ignorant masses. There’s no point in getting outraged about it, that’s how everyone does it. They’d be dumb not to. The author offers to let you in on the real secrets that are going on here, and how the politicians are competing to bamboozle you.
Scott Adams is essentially claiming to be the savviest of them all, second only to the Donald himself. That should make you a little skeptical. Even if we accept the Master Persuader hypothesis, it seems obvious to ask: what persuasion tricks is Adams using on his readers? Why, if he’s giving an honest representation of what’s going on, does he insist on using the term “persuasion,” but shies away from the conventional term for what he’s describing, “marketing?”
Because at the end of the day, Adams does describe something that is very much true when he says that political battles are not won and lost on the battlefields of reason and logic. Marketing is most of politics, and marketing bases its entire existence as an industry on the basic irrationality of human beings. This has given the industry a bit of a bad name, which is why Adams avoids its terminology. He generally doesn’t talk about “brands,” even when he’s describing how certain words have positive or negative associations of different strengths, and how that’s useful in appealing to people. The other advantage here is that people know that “marketing” is an industry that exists, and plenty of people, including people on Clinton’s side, know about it. “Persuasion,” on the other hand, is apparently a trick known mostly by hypnotists, reality show stars, and comic strip artists.
Once you learn even a little about marketing most of the brilliant achievements Adams attributes to Trump are really fairly basic marketing ideas. Seeing Adams to wax poetic about the brilliance of Trump making a vague statement and allowing the audience to fill in the blanks is a clear indication that either a) Adams’ understanding of marketing is fairly limited, such that simple marketing tricks appear very advanced to him, or b) he knows it isn’t that brilliant a tactic, and he’s not arguing in good faith. To talk about the brilliance of dodging a question about a subject he’d rather not discuss is to pretend that other politicians are simple, honest folk who never realized that if a subject of discussion was damaging to them they should try to change the subject.
In the end, Scott Adams is essentially trying to initiate you into his cult. He teaches you tricks that anybody with a second-rate Communications degree could have taught you, and then he tries to tell you you’re a magical wizard who can bend reality to your will – but only if you read what he tells you to read, buy his book, and. of course, follow him on Twitter.
Adams has achieved one thing of note in all this: he’s somehow managed to make Scot tAdams briefly relevant again in 2016. There are still people that think he’s the only one with a good handle on what’s really going on in this election. This relevance will be (God willing) short-lived, especially if his primary prediction, his claim to fame (that Donald Trump will win in a landslide), is proved incorrect. But in the meantime, don’t give him too much credit, and if he offers you any Kool-aid, don’t drink it.
 
|
The election stuff seems kind of bizarre, but his book looks interesting. Do you have recommended reading on marketing and persuasion for the layman, since you think his is bad? They're subjects I've never really pursued before and am probably quite ignorant about.
|
On October 30 2016 13:58 Starlightsun wrote:
The election stuff seems kind of bizarre, but his book looks interesting. Do you have recommended reading on marketing and persuasion for the layman, since you think his is bad? They're subjects I've never really pursued before and am probably quite ignorant about.
I'm definitely not the person to ask for learning about marketing, unfortunately. I, too, am something of a layman. Although after some quick googling, here's some I'll probably start with some day when I want to know more about marketing:
Positioning: The Battle for Your Mind, by Al Ries, Jack Trout, and Philip Kotler
Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Disruptive Products to Mainstream Customers, by Geoffrey A. Moore
All Marketers Are Liars, by Seth Godin
How Brands Grow, by Byron Sharp (apparently there's a sequel, if you like this one enough to want more)
|
I have similar feelings about Adams' blog. I hardly read any of it before he started writing about Trump and I stopped when it became obvious that his statements are nonsense, whether he believes what he says or not.
I do believe that he is supporting Trump too, conciously or not. There will be people who believe in his predictions and vote for Trump just to be on the supposed winning side.
It's also intersting that Trump has appeared in multiple Dilbert strips, but iirc. none in the past couple years.
|
i always thought Zork and Planetfall were way better than any of the Scott Adams games.
|
With the exception of JJR's painfully unfunny post, great blog.
|
On October 30 2016 17:34 spinesheath wrote:
I have similar feelings about Adams' blog. I hardly read any of it before he started writing about Trump and I stopped when it became obvious that his statements are nonsense, whether he believes what he says or not.
I do believe that he is supporting Trump too, conciously or not. There will be people who believe in his predictions and vote for Trump just to be on the supposed winning side.
It's also intersting that Trump has appeared in multiple Dilbert strips, but iirc. none in the past couple years.
Oh, it was pretty obvious from the beginning he supported Trump. Then at one point he endorsed Clinton "for his personsl safety," always qualifying his endorsement with "but I'm only saying this because it's not safe to support Trump where i live." Then he ended the suspense and just endorsed Trump, so now we're here.
|
Thank you for the interesting read.
|
United States15275 Posts
The "cult of savviness" observation is really intriguing to me. I find a lot of non-"mainstream" groups, ranging from the more rancorous corners of the feminist movement to antinatalists, promote themselves along the same lines. Each of them treat their salient issues not as a matter of discourse but perception; those who disagree with us are by definition blind to the true nature of the world, and so nothing like a productive discussion can possibly occur. Obviously it differs in that these groups want you to buy into their belief system, but they posit themselves as neutral observers who found this belief system by seeing through the veils and self-delusions that ordinary people don't detect. They also specialize in treating metaphors or conceptual devices as the "right" way of understanding an issue, basically treating the metaphor as fact.
|
On October 31 2016 01:59 CosmicSpiral wrote:
The "cult of savviness" observation is really intriguing to me. I find a lot of non-"mainstream" groups, ranging from the more rancorous corners of the feminist movement to antinatalists, promote themselves along the same lines. Each of them treat their salient issues not as a matter of discourse but perception; those who disagree with us are by definition blind to the true nature of the world, and so nothing like a productive discussion can possibly occur. Obviously it differs in that these groups want you to buy into their belief system, but they posit themselves as neutral observers who found this belief system by seeing through the veils and self-delusions that ordinary people don't detect. They also specialize in treating metaphors or conceptual devices as the "right" way of understanding an issue, basically treating the metaphor as fact.
It's a brilliant observation, I wish it was mine. I linked in the post to the article where I believe it originated.
|
On October 31 2016 01:59 CosmicSpiral wrote:
The "cult of savviness" observation is really intriguing to me. I find a lot of non-"mainstream" groups, ranging from the more rancorous corners of the feminist movement to antinatalists, promote themselves along the same lines. Each of them treat their salient issues not as a matter of discourse but perception; those who disagree with us are by definition blind to the true nature of the world, and so nothing like a productive discussion can possibly occur. Obviously it differs in that these groups want you to buy into their belief system, but they posit themselves as neutral observers who found this belief system by seeing through the veils and self-delusions that ordinary people don't detect. They also specialize in treating metaphors or conceptual devices as the "right" way of understanding an issue, basically treating the metaphor as fact.
Oh god antinatalists. Never occurred to me to liken them to fringe feminism but I can see the similarity now.
|
Trump does speak a different language from most politicians, and I think this election has demonstrated that language's effectiveness. If Trump weren't such a flawed candidate that would be even more obvious, although given how far he came, and considering that he was considered a farcical fringe candidate 13-14 months ago, Adams has at least picked out what is, perhaps, the most interesting methodological/technical feature of Trump the candidate.
The "Master Persuader" schtick and Adams's clear deficiencies as critic are, however, too much to ignore. He's a vain, shallow man whose reach exceeded his grasp long ago.
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 31 2016 08:51 IgnE wrote:
Trump does speak a different language from most politicians, and I think this election has demonstrated that language's effectiveness. If Trump weren't such a flawed candidate that would be even more obvious, although given how far he came, and considering that he was considered a farcical fringe candidate 13-14 months ago, Adams has at least picked out what is, perhaps, the most interesting methodological/technical feature of Trump the candidate.
The "Master Persuader" schtick and Adams's clear deficiencies as critic are, however, too much to ignore. He's a vain, shallow man whose reach exceeded his grasp long ago.
On a random note, happy cakeday!
|
On October 31 2016 08:51 IgnE wrote:
Trump does speak a different language from most politicians, and I think this election has demonstrated that language's effectiveness. If Trump weren't such a flawed candidate that would be even more obvious, although given how far he came, and considering that he was considered a farcical fringe candidate 13-14 months ago, Adams has at least picked out what is, perhaps, the most interesting methodological/technical feature of Trump the candidate.
The "Master Persuader" schtick and Adams's clear deficiencies as critic are, however, too much to ignore. He's a vain, shallow man whose reach exceeded his grasp long ago.
TLDR: Trump is the Ronald Reagan, if Ronald Reagan said a ton of stupid shit and grabbed the pussy.
|
On October 31 2016 08:51 IgnE wrote:
Trump does speak a different language from most politicians, and I think this election has demonstrated that language's effectiveness. If Trump weren't such a flawed candidate that would be even more obvious, although given how far he came, and considering that he was considered a farcical fringe candidate 13-14 months ago, Adams has at least picked out what is, perhaps, the most interesting methodological/technical feature of Trump the candidate.
The "Master Persuader" schtick and Adams's clear deficiencies as critic are, however, too much to ignore. He's a vain, shallow man whose reach exceeded his grasp long ago.
Yeah, initially I thought he was an interesting perspective for that reason. But quickly it became evident that his insights were nowhere near as groundbreaking as he made them out to be, and they came with a lot of baggage he was trying to sell. I don't usually mind "biased" media, as long as they wear it on their sleeve and talk straight about it. Adams has some weird web he's trying to weave.
|
I for one don't want a president who has been raped by this many women. According to TL 90% of alabama congress support him and it's shameful. it's just shameful.
|
On October 30 2016 22:25 farvacola wrote:
With the exception of JJR's painfully unfunny post, great blog.
my posts in the blog section are an andy kaufman experience
|
Norway28806 Posts
I agree entirely with this blog and some of the comments. I myself thought Adams' perspective was really interesting when I first read some of the initial persuasion blogs, but he really went off the deep end when the 'Trump landslide win' prophecy became less of a possibility. Still, I think there is something to what he is saying, in the sense that the creation of catch phrases and slogans is a very effective tool for 'political marketing'. lying ted,little marco, low energy bush, crooked hillary, Trump genuinely has some skill in making others look worse through repeating slogan-insults designed as exaggerations of real qualities found within the person in question.
Where he went wrong is through claiming that Trump is a master of this. He's just shameless enough to openly employ it (most intelligent people care quite deeply about being perceived as intelligent, most politicians are intelligent). If Trump had ran the same campaign, just that during interviews he occasionally took the role of a really knowledgeable and eloquent statesman, and if he didn't make the super-frequent gaffes, that would have been a formidable campaign. The way it looks now, the only brilliant aspect of it was really the timing of it, where he managed to be up against a huge field of flawed republicans and a massively disliked (to be fair, partially through Trump's doing) democrat.
Essentially, Adams seems to have hypothesized from the beginning that Trump was actually planning on showing this side to himself later on, that the initial buffoonery was just a way of getting exposure, because if he initially got massive exposure, it would give for him a platform to be political later on. But as more and more evidence has pointed towards him simply being a buffoon, Adams has doubled down on his initial belief. In a sense, it makes perfect sense that he's all about Trump.
|
Yeah, Trump clearly has some unusual marketing talents that have made this campaign interesting. On the other hand Adams has committed himself to arguing basically every dumb thing Trump says is some brilliant persuasion gambit. Seems like Trump knows how to work a crowd, but a lot of the stuff he says is still just plain dumb.
|
Did you follow him on twitter though?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
