Hi P,
A while back you asked what I thought of “Triggered”, the podcast of Sam Harris talking to Scott Adams.
First up, by the way, I do get Sam’s podcast notifications direct as I’m a supporter (financially!). I support a couple of other podcasts, like Dave Rubin. I value them; they rely on users, not advertisers; they’re doing a great job of speaking to a wide variety of people in a free and open way (no identity politics for these guys).
I enjoyed the talk Sam had with Scott. It was a very polite exchange, which might have, in other hands, descended into acrimony. You could feel themselves at times hauling in their frustration with each others’ views. They managed. Good on them, in these days of instant insult.
Sam said that the person his Trump-supporting listeners (“Trumpkins”) most wanted Sam to interview was Scott Adams. Having heard the podcast I wonder why.
After all, Scott didn’t really say anything supportive of Trump, let alone his policies, such as they are or may be. Instead, what it amounted to was Scott saying that Trump was a great “persuader”. Perhaps the greatest he’d seen. Another term for “persuasion” is “deception". Whether persuading or deceiving or conning, it seems odd to me that Trump supporters would want this to be the thing that is talked about. After all, is it good to be seen as someone persuadable, let alone someone who will swallow a con, allow oneself to be deceived?
I listened to the podcast early on, and read some of the comments early on. Here are some of the ones I noted. Last I saw there were over 1,000 comments, mostly, interestingly, on Sam’s side. Very few Trumpkins seem to have joined in the discussion. Wandering around the comments for a bit may be worthwhile.
I thought Sam won the debate, even though it wasn’t strictly speaking a debate. But some of the commenters thought the other way. Some also faulted Sam for missing some opportunities to make a point, and I agree, though I can’t recall specific instances.
Note an inconsistency in Scott: he picks on Sam for using analogies. But his main point is an analogy: people were in the same movie theatre, but watching different movies. Another note: Scott talks of “pacing and leading”, as the technique of persuasion. It appears this is a part of Neuro Linguistic Programming, which is a controversial subject, some saying that it’s been disavowed by scientists. Here’s an interesting take on NLP.
I remember my main impression when I first heard the podcast was to thing: “ok, he may be a great persuader; but so was Mao, so was Stalin, so is Derren Brown”. (I didn’t want to mention —even in my mind — that most infamous mustachio’d persuader, as I didn’t want to invoke Godwin’s law).
Final point: some while ago I stopped reading Dilbert, Scott’s cartoon. I used to like it, for a bit. Then I got tired of its incessant cynicism. That’s pretty much Adams, I think. A cynic. And doing anything, saying anything, to win power is ok. And that’s what Trump did. The man who is not just a con-man (oh… sorry, “persuader”…), but also, kinda crazy.
A while back you asked what I thought of “Triggered”, the podcast of Sam Harris talking to Scott Adams.
First up, by the way, I do get Sam’s podcast notifications direct as I’m a supporter (financially!). I support a couple of other podcasts, like Dave Rubin. I value them; they rely on users, not advertisers; they’re doing a great job of speaking to a wide variety of people in a free and open way (no identity politics for these guys).
I enjoyed the talk Sam had with Scott. It was a very polite exchange, which might have, in other hands, descended into acrimony. You could feel themselves at times hauling in their frustration with each others’ views. They managed. Good on them, in these days of instant insult.
Sam said that the person his Trump-supporting listeners (“Trumpkins”) most wanted Sam to interview was Scott Adams. Having heard the podcast I wonder why.
After all, Scott didn’t really say anything supportive of Trump, let alone his policies, such as they are or may be. Instead, what it amounted to was Scott saying that Trump was a great “persuader”. Perhaps the greatest he’d seen. Another term for “persuasion” is “deception". Whether persuading or deceiving or conning, it seems odd to me that Trump supporters would want this to be the thing that is talked about. After all, is it good to be seen as someone persuadable, let alone someone who will swallow a con, allow oneself to be deceived?
I listened to the podcast early on, and read some of the comments early on. Here are some of the ones I noted. Last I saw there were over 1,000 comments, mostly, interestingly, on Sam’s side. Very few Trumpkins seem to have joined in the discussion. Wandering around the comments for a bit may be worthwhile.
I thought Sam won the debate, even though it wasn’t strictly speaking a debate. But some of the commenters thought the other way. Some also faulted Sam for missing some opportunities to make a point, and I agree, though I can’t recall specific instances.
Note an inconsistency in Scott: he picks on Sam for using analogies. But his main point is an analogy: people were in the same movie theatre, but watching different movies. Another note: Scott talks of “pacing and leading”, as the technique of persuasion. It appears this is a part of Neuro Linguistic Programming, which is a controversial subject, some saying that it’s been disavowed by scientists. Here’s an interesting take on NLP.
I remember my main impression when I first heard the podcast was to thing: “ok, he may be a great persuader; but so was Mao, so was Stalin, so is Derren Brown”. (I didn’t want to mention —even in my mind — that most infamous mustachio’d persuader, as I didn’t want to invoke Godwin’s law).
Final point: some while ago I stopped reading Dilbert, Scott’s cartoon. I used to like it, for a bit. Then I got tired of its incessant cynicism. That’s pretty much Adams, I think. A cynic. And doing anything, saying anything, to win power is ok. And that’s what Trump did. The man who is not just a con-man (oh… sorry, “persuader”…), but also, kinda crazy.
