New Comment
13 comments, sorted by Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 3:03 AM

Continuing with Adams' theme of congratulating himself on making correct predictions, I'll point out that I correctly predicted both that Adams did in fact want Trump to win a year ago, and also planned to capitalize on the prediction if it came true, by writing a book:

My guess is that Adams is hoping that Trump wins the election, because he will then write a book about persuasion and how Trump's persuasion skills helped him win. He already has a lot of this material on his blog. In that scenario he can capitalize on his correct prediction, which seemed radical at the time, to generate a lot of publicity for the book.

Both of these claims seem to be confirmed by the podcast. Maybe I should write a book!

Maybe I should write a book!

I hope you do, so I can capitalize on my knowledge of your longstanding plan to capitalize on your knowledge of Adams' longstanding plan to capitalize on his knowledge that Trump would win with a book with a book with a book.

Scott Adams claims that exactly what he predicted happened in election night. That's wrong Scott Adams predicted a landslide win for Trump. Losing the popular vote is not compatible with a landslide win.

Scott Adams argues that 'nobody is for less climate science' at 1:32:30. That's false and unfortunately Sam Harris doesn't call him on it. Trump does attempt to defund climate science.

Hearing the discussion about how the red/blue team is going to get Republicans around to accepting climate change, I feel myself wishing that Sam Harris pushes for actual predictions.


Only recently seen two instances of sleazier self-promotion.

trust me I'm a hypnotist

no but I know how trump actually thinks

I predicted everything

you see the russian hacking

worst anime this fucking season, I can't believe I wasted more than an hour on this. How the russian hacking narrative didn't completly implode when the fbi published their paper which basically assumed everything and showed nothing completly baffles me.

but trumpkin dear, trump is in bed with putin and two korean twinks

Yes, but there's no russian hacking, the dnc are just technologically retarded sofas.

I haven't seen this, but doesn't "Trump won because of Russian hackers" somehow contradict "Trump won because he has persuasion skills"?

I mean, it is not literally a contradiction -- you could be a hypnotist and have an army of hackers -- but Occam's razor makes either "A" or "B" preferable to "A and B" as an explanation. If Trump is master hypnotist, then it is not necessary to assume the Russian hackers. And if Russia is making Trump win, then he doesn't have to be master hypnotist.

I guess what I actually want to say is that "Trump who doesn't need Russian hackers" seems to have greater persuasion skills than "Trump who needs Russian hackers to win". So I would expect Adams to argue against the Russian hackers, because that would make his case stronger.

Well,I agree with what you say. Sorry if my original post did not convey much thanks to the manner in which I post when my expectations regarding a piece of media are not met. Overall, I was dissapointed by their dialogue due to it's poor quality because these two individuals seem to be somewhat respected thinkers on the internet.

Now I would like to extend a little on the russian hacking part. I am not living in the United States and I have not been implicated politically except for reading online various material on the election. I do not deny there is a connection between Trump and Russia in whatever manner it is presented today. I simply deny the event known as the "russian hacking" because I kept a close eye on it when it all started in order to satisfy my opsec hobbyist needs and I loath the fact that people just accept it so easely and at the same time I'm afraid I'm certainly doing the same with other things and I'm unaware.

trust me, I'm a random hypno..sorry hobbyist

I simply deny the event known as the "russian hacking" because I kept a close eye on it when it all started in order to satisfy my opsec hobbyist needs

Let's say there was a blackop by the Russians of some sort. How would an opsec hobbyist like you know? You are a hobbyist, they are professional spies, probably the best in the world.

I used to term hobbyist to merely imply that I am not working in that field. You are right to assume my knowledge in spying is close to null (comparatively to an agent) though and I agree with that but if you think professional spies have some higher class of knowledge regarding operational security innacessible to the public you are wrong. The only things that make them more efficient is time and money.

Now, if you actually invested some time in this so called russian hacking you'll find that it fits your ideas. The evidence presented by the federal bureau is inconclusive and in no way an artefact of "probably the best spies in the world", more like "the worst spies in the world" that wrote a banned book called "How to be a russian hacker and have everyone know you are a russian hacker"

First question: I know you admire Trump's persuasion skills, but what I want to know is why you think he's a good person/president etc.

Answer: [talks about Trump's persuasion skills]

Yeah, okay.

I don't think so. Adams doesn't play the "updating on evidence" game. That would interfere with being a shill.

I wanted to comment here, but the comment became so long that I decided to make it a separate article.

This is gonna be great. Thanks for linking.

New to LessWrong?